ORDER :

1. Aggrieved by the orders passed on memo filed by defendant No. 3 in O.S. No. 584/2022 dated 03.09.2022 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru City, defendant No. 3 therein has preferred this petition.

2. Respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff before the trial Court. It has filed O.S. No. 584/2022 with the following prayers:

(a) PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING the Defendants, its agents, employees, representatives, henchmen or anybody claiming through or under it from misusing and misrepresenting the Logo, contents, channel name, visuals, documents, Office Premises, Studio premises, technical equipments, same employees and all other assets belonging to the Plaintiff Company.

(b) Also restrain the Defendants not to enter into contracts or agreement with Media Partners and channel Partners of the Plaintiff company by misusing the name of the Plaintiff Company.

(c) Such other orders/reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Costs of the Suit.

3. The suit pertains to intellectual property. However, as the prayer pertains to injunction, the suit has been valued at one thousand rupees as per Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, under Court Fee of Rs. 25/- is paid on the plaint.

4. Defendant No. 3/petitioner herein filed a memo before the trial Court contending that as per provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the Court has no jurisdiction to try the case and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The trial Court upon hearing the parties has passed the impugned order by which the memo filed by defendant No. 3/petitioner regarding the maintainability of the suit was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed by defendant No. 3 therein.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the suit pertains to injunction relating to an intellectual property and the value of the said right is more than three lakh rupees and plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was required to file the original suit before the Commercial Court and the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and it ought to have dismissed the same pursuant to the memo filed by the petitioner herein and it erred in not doing so.

7. Per contra, respondent No. 1 submits that what has been prayed in the suit is only an injunction and as per provisions of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act 1958, it is valued at one thousand rupees and Court Fee of Rs. 25/- is paid on the same and as valuation is less than three lakh rupees, the trial Court gets its jurisdiction to try the case and that there is no error in the impugned order and it prays for dismissal of the petition.

8. Section 2(c)(xvii) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ for brevity) reads as under:

(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(c) “Commercial dispute” means a dispute arising out of:

(xvii) intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits.

Section 6 of the Act reads as under:

6. Jurisdiction of Commercial Court - The Commercial Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction.

Section 2(1)(i) of the Act reads as under:

2. Definitions: (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(i) “Specified Value” in relation to a commercial dispute, shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of a suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 (which shall not be less than three lakh rupees) or such higher value, as may be notified by the Central Government.

Section 12(1)(d) reads as under:

12. Determination of Specified Value:

(1) The specified Value of the subject-matter of the commercial dispute in a suit, appeal or application shal