This research study attempts to assess the views of the court (both the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court) on the deplorable practice of forum shopping in matters involving intellectual property violations. The tactic of plaintiffs seeking those jurisdictions they believe are most willing to declare a favourable ruling or verdict, known as forum shopping, has grown in popularity in recent decades. Numerous plaintiffs, for instance, have brought actions in the Delhi High Court, asserting jurisdiction judging by past orders or perhaps even the mere potential of infringement in Delhi. The Delhi High Court is well-known for its proactive strategy to safeguarding intellectual property rights (“IPRs”) and for resolving such cases in a timely and effective manner. As a response, it has now become a favourite gathering spot for IP litigation. The facts and decisions of key cases given by the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court with the aforementioned trend of altering jurisdiction are the basis for this study. The paper's main findings are that forum shopping can overwhelm some courts, cause needless expenditures for defendants, and generate a bad public view of the judicial system's impartiality. The findings of this study article are significant since the online world has made it easier for persons to duplicate and disseminate recognized trademarks and content, but its ubiquity beyond borders has made identifying jurisdictional competence for legal action more onerous. The subject of jurisdictional competence has indeed been brought before courts several times, and there has been a significant amount of jurisprudence on it. This research paper summarizes the key implications from the decision, including how to decentralize IP matters and to discourage the tendency or upsurge of the conduct of forum shopping.