The internet has blurred traditional ideas of territoriality. Businesses now rely on cloud infrastructure, data is stored and processed across borders, artificial intelligence models are trained on servers in different countries, and digital intermediaries operate through globally distributed networks. Against this backdrop, defendants in intellectual property disputes increasingly argue that Indian courts lack jurisdiction simply because their servers are located outside India or they are based outside India. Indian courts have consistently rejected such a broad proposition. Server location is relevant context, but it is not decisive. The real enquiry is whether Indian law provides a basis for jurisdiction, whether the defendant has purposefully engaged with India, whether the alleged infringement or injury has occurred in India, and whether the court can grant effective relief.

The Delhi High Court’s recent decision in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI has brought these questions back into focus. Its reasoning builds on a developing line of Indian decisions which recognises that, in the digital environment, jurisdiction depends on where the cause of action arises and, on the defendant’s, purposeful connection with India.

This article traces the development of that approach through India’s leading internet-jurisdiction cases and considers how it now applies to generative AI. It focuses on four questions: the statutory basis for jurisdiction; the defendant’s purposeful or commercial engagement with India; the location of the alleged infringement or injury; and the court’s ability to grant meaningful relief despite foreign-hosted infrastructure.

Governing framework

Territorial jurisdiction in India is governed primarily by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In intellectual property disputes, special provisions, notably Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provide an additional basis for approaching a court.

Within that framework, server location is only one factual consideration. Courts instead look at the defendant’s commercial presence or targeting of India, the place where the alleged harm is felt, and whether exercising jurisdiction is necessary to provide an effective remedy.

Evolution of Indian digital-jurisdiction jurisprudence

Indian case law reflects a clear progression. The early decisions distinguished purposeful targeting from mere online accessibility. Later cases recognised that digital transactions could create a genuine commercial nexus with the forum. More recently, courts have emphasised that foreign-hosted systems should not make domestic remedies ineffective.

Banyan Tree: Moving beyond mere accessibility

The modern framework began with the Delhi High Court’s decision in Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2010).

The Court rejected the idea that a website’s mere accessibility in India is enough to confer jurisdiction. Instead, it adopted a “purposeful availment” test: a foreign defendant must have intentionally targeted Indian consumers or directed commercial activity towards India.

Banyan Tree therefore shifted the focus away from the location of digital infrastructure and towards the defendant’s deliberate relationship with the forum. Accessibility alone was not enough; purposeful commercial targeting could be.

WWE v. Reshma Collection: Carrying on business through e-commerce

The next important development came in World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. v. Reshma Collection & Ors., where the Delhi High Court considered whether a foreign rights-holder could be said to carry on business in Delhi through online commercial activity.

Although the plaintiff had no physical office in Delhi, its programmes were broadcast there, its merchandise was available there, and Delhi consumers could purchase its goods and services through its website. The Division Bench held that “carrying on business” could not be confined to a brick-and-mortar presence when essential commercial transactions were concluded online.

WWE connected the statutory test with the idea of purposeful targeting. Where online transactions are directed at and completed with consumers in the forum, a business may be treated as operating there even without a local office or agent. Deliberate e-commerce activity can therefore provide both the commercial nexus and the purposeful connection needed for territorial jurisdiction.

India TV: Recognising commercial nexus

In India TV Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd. v. India Broadcast Live LLC, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that internet disputes require a practical and commercial approach. The Court recognised jurisdiction because the defendant’s online activities had a sufficient connection with India and were capable of causing confusion and injury within the country.

India TV added another dimension- the place where the harm is felt. The Court considered whether the defendant’s conduct had a sufficient connection with India and was capable of causing confusion or injury. The enquiry therefore extended beyond conduct directed at India to the territorial effect of that conduct.

Swami Ramdev: Effective remedies in a borderless internet

The problem became still more apparent in Swami Ramdev v. Facebook Inc., which concerned allegedly defamatory material available across the world.

The Delhi High Court granted a global injunction directing the intermediaries to disable access to the offending material. It recognised that relief confined to India could be ineffective when digital content moves effortlessly across borders.

Swami Ramdev thus developed the remedial limb of the jurisdictional enquiry. Once a sufficient territorial nexus exists, the remedy must reflect the borderless way in which digital content is disseminated. The location of servers should not make judicial protection illusory.

Tata Sons v. Hakunamatata: Targeting India through foreign digital platforms

The principle was carried forward in Tata Sons Private Limited v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders & Ors. The defendants were foreign entities accused of using the TATA mark for cryptocurrency offerings promoted through websites accessible in India.

The Division Bench stressed that the central question was not where the defendants were located, but whether their online conduct showed purposeful targeting of Indian consumers. Website accessibility remained insufficient by itself. However, interactive commercial activity, Indian traffic, references to Indian users or programmes, and the use of a mark enjoying an exceptional reputation in India could, taken together, establish a sufficient nexus for interim protection.

Tata Sons reaffirmed the targeting test in the context of newer digital business models, including cryptocurrency and tokenised offerings. Foreign incorporation or infrastructure does not insulate an online actor whose interactive conduct is aimed at India and allegedly harms Indian intellectual property rights.
Neetu Singh v. Telegram: Server location cannot become a jurisdictional shield

These decisions identify the factors that can establish territorial jurisdiction: a statutory basis, purposeful targeting, commercial activity and injury within the forum. Neetu Singh v. Telegram FZ LLC addressed the question directly and examined if connections to India and purposeful targeting can be displaced merely because the relevant data is stored abroad?

Telegram resisted disclosure orders on the ground that user information was stored on servers outside India. The Delhi High Court rejected that argument, observing that treating foreign server location as decisive would leave Indian copyright owners without an effective remedy against online infringement.

Neetu Singh made the principle explicit. Once the alleged infringement, injury and need for relief are sufficiently connected with India, a platform cannot avoid jurisdiction or enforcement obligations simply by storing data on foreign servers. Server geography is a technical fact; it is not a shield.

ANI v. OpenAI: Applying settled principles to generative AI

The Delhi High Court recently applied these principles in ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. OpenAI, one of India’s first major copyright disputes involving generative artificial intelligence.

OpenAI argued that the alleged copying occurred outside India because its large language models were trained on servers in the United States. On that basis, it contended that Indian courts lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The Court rejected this submission by applying the same four-part framework. ANI, an Indian copyright owner carrying on business in Delhi, could invoke the special jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. OpenAI purposefully served the Indian market by making ChatGPT and paid subscription services available to Indian users. The allegedly infringing outputs could be generated and consumed in India, linking the asserted injury and part of the cause of action to the forum. Finally, treating overseas server location as decisive would undermine the court’s ability to grant effective relief.

The Court also observed that storing copyrighted material on foreign servers is only one step in a wider chain of events connected with India. Accepting OpenAI’s position would allow digital platforms to avoid Indian law simply by placing their servers abroad.

Drawing on Neetu Singh, the Court held, on a prima facie basis, that foreign server location does not oust the jurisdiction of Indian courts when a substantial part of the cause of action arises in India.

Conclusion

Global cloud infrastructure has unquestionably made questions of jurisdiction more complex, but Indian courts have responded pragmatically. Banyan Tree and Tata Sons explain what purposeful targeting looks like. WWE shows when online transactions amount to carrying on business. India TV links jurisdiction to injury within the forum, while Swami Ramdev highlights the importance of effective relief. Neetu Singh states the consequence plainly: a foreign server is a technical circumstance, not a jurisdictional determinant.

The decision in ANI v. OpenAI is a natural extension of this jurisprudence. It confirms that multinational technology companies cannot sidestep Indian copyright law merely by pointing to the geographical location of their servers.