Bengaluru Court Can Try Trademarks Suit If Parties Not Residing Within Its Territory But Cause Of Action Has Arisen There: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has held that a court in Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to try a suit instituted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru, even if the plaintiff or the defendant is not residing in the said place.A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by Varun Chopra and another and set aside the order of...
The Karnataka High Court has held that a court in Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to try a suit instituted under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the cause of action has arisen in Bengaluru, even if the plaintiff or the defendant is not residing in the said place.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde allowed the appeal filed by Varun Chopra and another and set aside the order of the trial court which had rejected the suit on the ground that none of the parties is having any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru where the suit is instituted. It restored the suit back on the file of the trial court.
The plaintiff argued that the impugned order ignores Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It submitted that the cause of action to file the suit arose in Bengaluru as the plaintiffs' registered trademark is infringed in Bengaluru and the defendants are passing off the plaintiffs' trade mark in Bengaluru.
However, the defendants contended that the suit is governed by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999. Admittedly, none of the defendants reside or carried on business in Bengaluru. Since the suit was filed invoking Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, it was contended that a suit can be filed only in any of the three places namely, (a) where the plaintiff has a principal office; or (b) where any one of the defendants resides, carries on business, or works for gain; or (c) any one of the defendants has a subordinate office and the cause of action has also arisen in the place where any one of the defendants is having a subordinate office.
The court noted that under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of CPC, the jurisdiction of the Court is linked to the residence or the place of business or work of the defendant at the time of the commencement of the suit. Under clause-(c) of Section 20 of the Code, the jurisdiction of the Court is linked to the cause of action. The cause of action may be either the whole or part. This clause is not linked to the location of the defendant. It is only a “cause of action centric” clause.
It said “It is to be noticed that each of the clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 of the Code is separated by a disjunctive word "or" preceded by a semicolon (;). Thus, it is obvious that the said clauses are independent of each other. There is nothing to indicate that they have to be read conjunctively.”
It added, “If clause (c) of Section 20 of the Code is read independently, then the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit under Section 20 (c) of the Code is dependent only on the "cause of action" and nothing else. The place of residence or business or work of the defendant is irrelevant.”
Court also said that merely because the defendant has a subordinate office at a place other than the place where it has a principal office, the Court in such a place where the subordinate office is located will not automatically get the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. "The place where the subordinate office of the defendant corporation is located will get the jurisdiction to try the suit only if the cause of action arises in that place where the subordinate office of the defendant is located.”
Further it said “The expression “cause of action” appearing in explanation to Section 20 of the Code has nothing to do with the jurisdiction conferred on the Court based on the cause of action under Section 20(c) of the Code. Hence, the contention of the respondents that the defendants' subordinate office is not located in Bengaluru and the Court in Bengaluru does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the suit has to be rejected as the plaintiffs' case falls under Section 20 (c) of the Code.”
Court further held that Defendants in the suit are individuals and not corporations coming under explanation to Section 20 of the Code and hence, the defense available to the Corporation is not available to the defendants. "As this Court has already held that Section 20(c) of the Code is independent of clauses (a) and (b) of Section 20 of the Code, the right of the plaintiff to institute a suit in a place where the cause of action has arisen is not taken away even if the plaintiff or the defendant is not residing in the said place.”
Noting that in the plaint it is averred that the defendants have sold certain products infringing the plaintiffs' registered trade mark and the alleged transaction has taken place in Bengaluru, Court held,
“Merely because the plaintiffs could have filed a suit in Uttar Pradesh where the principal office of the plaintiffs is located or the plaintiffs could have filed a suit in a place where the defendants are carrying on the business, it does not mean that the Court within whose jurisdiction the “cause of action” has arisen does not have a jurisdiction to try the suit. This being the position, the Court in Bengaluru has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the Code.”
Accordingly it allowed the appeal.
Appearance: Advocate Puneeth Yadav for Appellants
Advocate Venkatesh R. Bhagath, for defendants.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
Case Title: Varun Chopra & ANR AND Shyam Sunder Chopra
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1735 OF 2023