9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 614 - SC - Companies LawWhether causes of action in terms of both the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act although may be different, would a suit be maintainable in a court only because it has the jurisdiction to entertain the same in terms of Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act? Held that - What then would be meant by a composite suit - A composite suit would not entitle a court to entertain a suit in respect whereof it has no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise. Order II Rule 3 of the Code specifically states so and, thus, there is no reason as to why the same should be ignored. A composite suit within the provisions of the 1957 Act would mean the suit which is founded on infringement of a copy right and wherein the incidental power of the Court is required to be invoked. A plaintiff may seek a remedy which can otherwise be granted by the court. It was that aspect of the matter which never meant that two suits having different causes of actions can be clubbed together as a composite suit. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Copyright 2. Passing Off 3. Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court 4. Maintainability of Composite Suit Detailed Analysis: 1. Infringement of Copyright: The appellant, a manufacturer of 'Dabur Red Tooth Powder,' claimed that the respondent infringed its copyright by using an identical color scheme, layout, and arrangement of features for their product 'Sujata.' The appellant argued that the carton design constituted an 'artistic work' under Section 25-C of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the 1957 Act). The relief sought included a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent from reproducing any artistic features of the appellant's product packaging, which amounted to copyright infringement. 2. Passing Off: The appellant also sought relief for passing off, arguing that the respondent's use of similar packaging was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. The relief included a permanent injunction to prevent the respondent from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale any tooth powder in the impugned packaging or any packaging that slavishly imitated the appellant's product. 3. Jurisdiction of Delhi High Court: The respondent contended that the Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction as the respondent was based in Andhra Pradesh and there was no evidence of the respondent selling goods in Delhi. The Single Judge of the High Court accepted this contention, and the Division Bench upheld this decision, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, which emphasized that the court's jurisdiction depended on the defendant's location and the place of cause of action. 4. Maintainability of Composite Suit: The appellant argued that a composite suit under the 1957 Act and the Trade Marks Act, 1958 (the 1958 Act) should be maintainable, citing Section 55 of the 1957 Act, which allows for all remedies by law for the infringement of a right. The appellant relied on the precedent set in Exphar Sa & Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. & Anr., which supported broader jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act. However, the respondent countered that the causes of action under the 1957 Act and the 1958 Act are distinct, and jurisdiction for passing off actions was not provided under the 1958 Act. Judgment Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the jurisdiction for a composite suit involving both copyright infringement and passing off must be determined separately. The Court referenced the Dhodha House case, which clarified that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 62(2) of the 1957 Act does not extend to the 1958 Act. The Court noted that while the 1957 Act provides an additional forum for copyright infringement suits, this does not apply to passing off actions under the 1958 Act. The Court also examined the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides for jurisdiction in passing off cases but did not find it applicable to the present case. The Court concluded that a composite suit cannot be maintained if the court lacks jurisdiction over one of the causes of action, reiterating that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure must be followed. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming that the Delhi High Court had no jurisdiction over the passing off claim and that a composite suit for copyright infringement and passing off could not be maintained in this instance. The Court awarded costs of Rs. 50,000 to the respondent.
|
