Trademark Suit Can Be Filed At 'Principal Place Of Business', Doesn't Need To Be Filed At Company's Registered Address: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a company's registered office may not necessarily be its principal place of business for the purposes of filing a trademark infringement suit. The court held that a suit for infringement of trademark can be filed at the "principal office" of the company, even if the registered office is located elsewhere.

The ruling came in an interim application filed by Shree Sai Plast Pvt. Ltd., seeking the return of a suit filed against it by Prince Pipes and Fittings Ltd. for trademark infringement. Prince Pipes has its registered office in Goa but its principal place of business is Mumbai, where it carries out all major business activities.

Justice Bharati Dangre dismissed Shree Sai's application, holding that the suit was rightly filed in Mumbai as that is Prince Pipes' principal place of business.

The court noted that Prince Pipes' registered office is in Goa, but its principal place of business is Mumbai as the entire business activity of the plaintiff is carried out from Mumbai, whereas, Shree Sai is situated in Bihar.

In her order, Justice Dangre stated, "The principal place of business need not be equated, every time with registered office, as the principal place of business of the company is the place wherefrom the company controls its business activities i.e. where the center of power of corporate body is located."

"It is quite possible that principal place of business is also its registered office, but it may not be true in every scenario. The principal place of business at times may not be the registered place of business, as the principal place may be distinct from its registered place as the former is the place from where the entire company business is controlled," she added.

The court clarified that under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, a plaintiff can file a suit not just where its registered office is located, but also where it has its principal place of business or where it voluntarily resides or works for gain.

"A careful reading of Supreme Court's decision in IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia shows that the additional forum provided under Section 134(2) cannot be used to drag a defendant to a remote location just because the plaintiff has a subordinate office there," the order stated.

Appearance – Advocates Alankar Kirpekar a/w Shekhar Bhagat for Shree Sai

Advocates Rashmin Khandekar a/w K. Khanna & Madhu Gadodia for Prince Pipes

Click Here To Read/Download Order