9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court. 2. Applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) versus Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit filed by the respondent. The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit on the Original Side of the Court, seeking a decree of mandatory injunction, damages, and remedies for infringement of trademark, passing off, and unfair competition. The respondent asserted that the offending product was sold by the appellant within the jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi. The Single Judge rejected the application, stating that part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The appellant contended that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which provides that suits for infringement of a registered trademark or passing off cannot be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court, should prevail over Section 20 CPC. The appellant argued that Section 134 impliedly repeals Section 20 CPC and that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. 2. Applicability of Section 20 CPC vs. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: Section 20 CPC specifies that every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action arises. The appellant argued that Section 20 CPC is a general provision and that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, being a special provision, should have an overriding effect. The Court examined whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, impliedly repeals Section 20 CPC. It was noted that Section 134 includes a non obstante clause, which means it should be read in addition to Section 20 CPC. The Supreme Court in Dhodha House clarified that the provisions of Section 134 provide an additional forum over and above Section 20 CPC. The respondent argued that they were invoking Section 20 CPC and not Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court scrutinized the plaint and concluded that the provisions of Section 20(c) CPC were applicable, as the cause of action arose in part within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court due to the sale of the offending product in Delhi. The Court found that the appellant had admitted in its written statement that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction and that the offending product was sold in Delhi. The Court held that the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, do not override Section 20 CPC but provide an additional forum for filing suits in cases of trademark violations. The Court concluded that the order dated 28th April 2006, passed by the learned Single Judge, was correct and that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
