Sat. Sep 26th, 2020

Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors. on 20 July, 2015

2 min read

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
I.A. stands disposed of.
CS(OS) 2065/2015 & I.A. No.14256/2015 (Stay)

2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction alleging a

cause of action of infringement of its trade mark ‘AMRAPALI’.

3. Plaintiff alleges infringement of trade mark as also the

copyright of the plaintiff in the depiction of the trade mark. In the suit the

following prayers are made:-
4. Jurisdiction of this Court is claimed on the basis of Section

134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright

Act, 1957 as per para 52 of the plaint and this para reads as under:-

5. The provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 have been the subject matter

of pronouncement in a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr., Civil

Appeal nos.10643-44 of 2010 dated 01.07.2015. This judgment has also laid

down the ratio that in case the plaintiff does not carry on business or has

branch office or head office etc at a place where cause of action arises then

surely such a plaintiff uses the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade

Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 to file a suit

where the plaintiff is having an office or carrying on business or residing,

however, these provisions cannot be invoked to file a suit claiming

infringement of trade mark/copyright in case the plaintiff is carrying on

business at the place where cause of action arises or has either a branch

office or a head office at the place where the cause of action arises. The

Supreme Court has clarified that no doubt object of Section 134(2) of the

Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was to

give convenience to the plaintiff, however, these provisions have to be read

in such a manner that it should not lead to harassment of defendants in a case

where plaintiff is carrying on business or resides or works for gain or has a

branch office or a head office or a registered office at the place where the

cause of action arises, and in spite of that a suit is sought not to be filed at

such place where the cause of action arises and where the plaintiff has an

office or is carrying on business, but at another court simply because a

plaintiff has an office or carries on business or resides although the cause of

action does not arise at such latter place. The relevant paragraphs of the

judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd.’s

case (supra) are paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 and these

paragraphs read as under:-

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply