Occurrence Of Cause Of Action Is A Determining Factor For Attracting Jurisdiction Of Courts Under CPC, Trademarks Act: Delhi High Court Reiterates

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that the occurrence of cause of action at a place is a determining factor both under sec. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sec. 134 of the Trade Marks Act to attract the jurisdiction of the Court at such place.

A single judge bench comprising of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed thus:

"If under Section 20 CPC, jurisdiction of the Court is attracted by virtue of location of the defendant‟s place of business or from where the defendant is carrying on its business or working for gain, under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, it is the plaintiff‟s office location or from where he is carrying on business, is a material factor"

Furthermore, it said:

"The occurrence of cause of action or any part thereof, at a place, is held to be a determining factor, both under Section 20 CPC, and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, to attract jurisdiction of the court at such place."

The Court was dealing with an application filed in a suit instituted by V Guard Industries (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction to restrain N Guard (defendant) from infringement and passing off its trade mark and design.

The application was filed by the defendant questioning the competence of the High Court for entertaining the said suit for want of territorial jurisdiction and had therefore prayed for return of the plaint.

The plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling electrical goods with a registered trade mark 'V-GUARD'. The Court had vide order dated 18th January 2021 granted ex parte ad interim injunction by restraining the defendant from selling or distributing the products under the trade mark 'N-GUARD) and domain name www.nguard.in or any other trademark which is similar to the plaintiff.

Questioning the jurisdiction of the Court, it was the defendant's case that it was not carrying the business in Delhi and that none of the plaintiff or defendant had their registered office in Delhi.

It was also argued that a third party marketplace website like Amazon is not adequate to attract the jurisdiction of the Court.

On the other hand, the plaintiff submitted that the availability of Defendant‟s products on third party marketplace websites like Amazon, Flipkart and Indiamart which can be accessed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court and that the offending products were delivered in Delhi.

Hearing the submissions, the Court was of the view that territorial jurisdiction of Courts in the matters of infringement and passing off of trade mark has been a vexed legal issue.

Observing that the defendant's products were available for sale and delivery in Delhi through third party marketplaces, the Court opined thus:

"it is prima facie established that the Defendant‟s offending products are not only freely sold on amazon.in, but are also available for sale to customers in Delhi on other third party marketplace websites e.g., Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, Indiamart and Shopclues, which are universally accessible, including to customers in Delhi."

Furthermore, it was observed that:

"..if some part of cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff has its branch/subordinate office, Courts at that place will have jurisdiction to entertain a suit against infringement and passing off."

Title: V GUARD INDUSTRIES LTD. v. SUKAN RAJ JAIN & ANR.

Click Here To Read Order