The Aryavarth Express
Agency(Bengaluru): The Karnataka High Court recently allowed an appeal challenging the order of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which had rejected a plaint in a trademark infringement suit on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within its territorial limits, irrespective of the residence or place of business of the parties.
The plaintiffs, residing in Uttar Pradesh, had filed a suit for injunction against the defendants, who were residing in Uttar Pradesh and Haryana, alleging infringement of their registered trademark and passing off in Bengaluru. The defendants invoked Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as none of the parties resided or carried on business within its jurisdiction.
The High Court analyzed the scope of Section 20 of the CPC and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and observed that clauses (a) to (c) of Section 20 are independent of each other. The Court held that if clause (c) of Section 20 is read independently, the jurisdiction of the court to try the suit is dependent only on the cause of action and not on the place of residence or business of the defendant.
The Court also clarified that the explanation to Section 20 of the CPC, which deals with the jurisdiction of courts in cases involving corporations, does not dilute the jurisdiction conferred on the court based on the cause of action under Section 20(c). The expression “cause of action” in the explanation has a limited purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the court where the defendant has a subordinate office, provided the cause of action also arises in that place.
Distinguishing the present case from the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Limited vs. Sanjay Dalia (2015), the High Court held that 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 that place.
As the plaintiffs had averred in the plaint that the defendants had sold products infringing their registered trademark and the alleged transaction had taken place in Bengaluru, the High Court held that the City Civil Court, Bengaluru, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 20(c) of the CPC.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, and restored the suit to the file of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The Court’s decision clarifies the scope of Section 20(c) of the CPC and affirms the jurisdiction of courts based on the place where the cause of action arises in trademark infringement suits.
