JUDGMENT :

Whether a suit falling under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, (for short Act of 1999) can be instituted in a Court, where neither the plaintiff nor the defendant resides or carries on business or personally works for gain within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where the cause of action has arisen is the question that has come up for consideration.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction alleging infringement of trade mark and also restraint orders to restrain the defendants from passing off.

3. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are residing in Uttar Pradesh. Defendants No.1, 2, and 5 are residing in Uttar Pradesh and the rest of the defendants are in Haryana. None of them is having any branch office within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bengaluru where the suit is instituted.

4. In this background, the defendants invoked Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'Code') to reject the plaint on the premise that the City Civil Court in Bengaluru has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs opposed the said application. The Trial Court allowed the application to reject the plaint on the premise that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

5. Sri. Puneeth Yadav, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/appellants, would submit that the impugned order ignores Section 20(c) of the Code. It is urged that the cause of action to file the suit arose in Bengaluru as the plaintiffs' registered trade mark is infringed in Bengaluru and the defendants are passing off the plaintiffs' trade mark in Bengaluru.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would place reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay vs. Prasad Trading Company (1991) 4 SCC 270

(ii) Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra and Another (2014) 9 SCC 129

(iii) Burger King Corporation vs. Techchand Shewakrawani & Ors. 2018 SCC online Del 10881

(iv) Machinenfabrik Reiter AG and Another vs. Tex Tech Industries (India) Private Limited and Another 2021 SCC online Del 1825

(v) Copenhagen Hospitality and Retails and Others vs. A.R. Impex and Others 2021 SCC online Del 3899

7. Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagath, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants/respondents would contend that the suit is governed by Section 134 of the Act of 1999. Admittedly none of the defendants resides or carries on business or works for gain within the jurisdiction of the Court where the suit is filed. Since the suit is filed invoking Section 134 of the Act of 1999, a suit can be filed only in any of the three places namely,

(a) where the plaintiff has a principal office;

or

(b) where any one of the defendants resides, carries on business, or works for gain;

or

(c) any one of the defendants has a subordinate office and the cause of action has also arisen in the place where any one of the defendants is having a subordinate office.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) Indian Performing Rights Society Limited vs. Sanjay Dalia and Another (2015) 10 SCC 161

(ii) Ultra Home Construction Private Limited vs. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey and others 2016 SCC Online Delhi 376

(iii) M/s Unilever Australasia vs. M/s Shingar Cosmetics Private Limited and others 2010 SCC Online Kar 222

(iv) Manugraph India Ltd vs Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and others 2016 SCC Online Bom 5334

9. The contentions raised call for an examination of the scope of Section 20 of the Code and Section 134 of the Act of 1999.

10. Section 20 of the Code reads as under:-

20. Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises.—

Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction—

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally