2005 (12) TMI 529 - SC - Companies Law

Whether 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 - In this case, the Delhi High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction in terms of the 1957 Act. The primary ground upon which the jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court was invoked was the violation of the 1958 Act, but in relation thereto, the provisions of sub- section (2) of Section 62 of the 1957 Act could not be invoked. The plaintiff was not a resident of Delhi. It has not been able to establish that it carries on any business at Delhi. For our purpose, the question as to whether the defendant had been selling its produce in Delhi or not is wholly irrelevant. It is possible that the goods manufactured by the plaintiff are available in the market of Delhi or they are sold in Delhi but that by itself would not mean that the plaintiff carries on any business in Delhi. It is not in dispute before us that the application for registration of the trade mark was to be filed either at Bombay or at Ahmedabad. The objections thereto by the plaintiff were also required to be filed at the said places. The jurisdiction of the Delhi court could not have been invoked only on the ground that advertisement in respect thereof was published in the Trade Marks Journal. Section 62 of the 1957 Act, therefore, will have no application. The plaintiff has no branch office at Delhi. Its manufacturing facilities are not available at Delhi. Both its trade mark and copyright are also not registered at Delhi. In this case we have not examined the question as to whether if a cause of action arises under the 1957 Act and the violation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act is only incidental, a composite suit will lie or not, as such a question does not arise in this case.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extent of jurisdiction of a civil court under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
2. Territorial jurisdiction in cases of infringement of trade marks and copyrights.
3. The applicability of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. The validity of composite suits involving both trade mark and copyright infringements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent of Jurisdiction of a Civil Court:
The primary issue in both appeals was the extent of jurisdiction of a civil court to adjudicate matters involving infringement of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The court examined whether a civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain suits where the cause of action arises under both Acts.

2. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The court analyzed the territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which states that suits should be instituted where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. In Civil Appeal No. 6248 of 1997, the High Court had held that the civil court at Ghaziabad had no territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action did not arise there. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that a judgment passed by a court without territorial jurisdiction is a nullity.

3. Applicability of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957:
Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act provides an additional forum for authors to file suits where they reside or carry on business. The court clarified that this provision does not extend to cases under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1999, the court held that the Delhi High Court could not invoke its jurisdiction under Section 62(2) for matters primarily concerning the 1958 Act. The court reiterated that the jurisdiction conferred by Section 62(2) is specific to copyright infringement and does not apply to trade mark cases.

4. Validity of Composite Suits:
The court examined whether a composite suit involving both trade mark and copyright infringements is maintainable. It was held that while composite suits are permissible, they must be filed in a court that has jurisdiction over all the causes of action. The court emphasized that the mere joining of causes of action under Order II Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacks it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 6248 of 1997, affirming that the Ghaziabad court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Conversely, Civil Appeal No. 16 of 1999 was allowed, with the court holding that the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act for matters primarily concerning the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The court concluded that jurisdiction must be determined based on where the cause of action arises and the specific provisions of the relevant Acts.