2015 (7) TMI 277 - SC - Companies Law

Jurisdiction of High Court - Infringement of the Trademark / Copyright - Interpretation of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 - Interpretation of section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Place of initiation of suit Delhi vs Mumbai - Head office situated at Mumbai while branch office at Delhi - Held that - In our opinion, the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act have to be interpreted in the purposive manner. No doubt about it that a suit can be filed by the plaintiff at a place where he is residing or carrying on business or personally works for gain. He need not travel to file a suit to a place where defendant is residing or cause of action wholly or in part arises. However, if the plaintiff is residing or carrying on business etc. at a place where cause of action, wholly or in part, has also arisen, he has to file a suit at that place. In order passed by the delhi high court 2008 (11) TMI 658 - DELHI HIGH COURT , it was held that if the cause of action has arisen at a place where the Plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, that place is not only the appropriate but also the only place where a suit can be instituted ventilating a grievance of violation of copyright, (and since the provisions are similar) to an infringement of the trademark. In holding so we are not ignoring the provisions of either the Copyright Act or the Trade Marks Act; we are only imparting a pragmatic interpretation to them.Thus, for the aforesaid reasons mentioned by us in the judgment, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the High Court. - Decided against the appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Interpretation of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Territorial jurisdiction for filing suits under the above-mentioned Acts.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957:

The primary issue was the interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows a plaintiff to file a suit in a district court where they reside, carry on business, or personally work for gain. The court emphasized that this provision was intended to remove the impediment for plaintiffs who might otherwise be deterred from filing suits due to the distance of the court from their place of residence or business. The provision provides an additional forum for plaintiffs but does not override the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The court clarified that if the cause of action arises where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, the suit should be filed there, not at a distant place where the plaintiff may have a subordinate office.

2. Interpretation of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:

Similar to Section 62 of the Copyright Act, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, allows a plaintiff to file a suit in a district court where they reside, carry on business, or personally work for gain. The court noted that this section also provides an additional forum for plaintiffs, emphasizing that the provision should not be used to harass defendants by dragging them to distant places. The court reiterated that the intention behind these provisions is to provide convenience to the plaintiff without causing undue hardship to the defendant.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction for Filing Suits:

The court examined the territorial jurisdiction for filing suits under the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act. It highlighted that Section 20 of the CPC, which deals with the place of suing, remains applicable. The court held that while Sections 62 and 134 provide additional forums, they do not allow plaintiffs to ignore the place where the cause of action arises if it coincides with the place where they reside or carry on business. The court emphasized that the provisions should not be interpreted to allow plaintiffs to file suits in jurisdictions far removed from the place of business or residence, as this would be contrary to the legislative intent and could lead to abuse of the provisions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision that the suits should have been filed in Mumbai, where the cause of action arose and where the plaintiffs had their principal place of business. The court clarified that Sections 62 of the Copyright Act and 134 of the Trade Marks Act provide additional forums but do not override the territorial jurisdiction principles outlined in Section 20 of the CPC. The interpretation aims to balance the convenience of the plaintiff with the need to prevent harassment of the defendant, ensuring that the provisions are not misused to file suits in distant and unrelated jurisdictions.

← Previous Next →