The Delhi High Court on Friday questioned whether it has territorial jurisdiction to hear Hindustan Unilever Ltd’s (HUL) plea against home-care brand Beco over advertisements claiming that HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim products contain chemicals causing skin irritation and allergies, according to livemint.com. The court raised concerns about whether the availability of Beco’s social media posts and website in Delhi is sufficient to establish a cause of action there.
During the hearing, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani emphasized that jurisdiction must be established before proceeding, stating that Delhi High Court cannot be the sole Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) court for the entire country. The court is considering whether the case should be heard in a different jurisdiction, given that IPR courts handle disputes related to patents, trademarks, copyrights, and designs. The matter involves allegations by Beco against HUL’s products, which HUL has challenged through legal channels.
This jurisdictional question highlights ongoing challenges in India’s legal framework for handling IPR disputes, especially with the rise of digital advertising and social media. The case is significant as it involves major consumer brands and claims of product safety, which can influence advertising norms and consumer trust. Similar disputes in the sector have often raised questions about the appropriate venue for hearing cases involving digital content accessible nationwide.
The Delhi High Court’s decision on jurisdiction will determine where the substantive legal battle between HUL and Beco proceeds. The next hearing is scheduled soon, where the court will clarify whether it will retain the case or transfer it to another jurisdiction, setting a precedent for future IPR disputes involving digital advertisements.