The court ruled that jurisdiction objections must be accepted based on the plaint's claims, enabling a foreign entity's operational presence via a local subsidiary to maintain a suit under the Copyright Act.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 impugning an order dated 02.04.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Commercial Court, whereby the application filed by the respondents under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter `the CPC') was allowed.

2. The appellants had instituted the suit [being CS(Comm) 30/2020, Dassault Systemes SE and Anr. v. Automobile Corporation of Goa Ltd.], alleging that respondent no.1 and its directors (respondent nos. 1 to 10) had infringed their copyright in computer software programs including the work titled CATIA V5-6R2013 (hereafter `CATIA'). The learned Commercial Court accepted the respondents' contention that the Court lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and directed that the plaint be returned to be filed in a competent court.

The context

3. Dassault Systemes S.E. (hereafter "appellant no.1") is a French company engaged in the business of 3D and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) solutions by creating digital mock ups. Dassault Systemes India Private Limited (hereafter "appellant no.2") is a wholly owned subsidiary of appellant no.1.

4. The appellants have filed the present suit against the Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited (hereafter `the respondent') - a company engaged in the manufacturing of numerous products such as new model bus bodies and industrial sheet metal pressed components. The appellants, inter alia, seek a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents from copying, storing or using unlicenced/pirated software including CATIA. The appellants also seek other reliefs including for delivery, rendition of accounts and damages, in relation to the alleged unauthorised use of the design software.

5. The respondents filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC contending that no part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commercial Court as respondent no.1 has its principal office in the State of Goa and none of its directors (also arrayed as defendants) reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Commercial Court. The respondents further contended that the learned Commercial Court also lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Suit under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereafter `the Copyright Act') as appellant no.1 is incorporated in the French Republic and the copyright in the work titled CATIA V5-6R2013 (CATIA) is registered with the United States Copyright Office (hereafter `USCO') under registration no. TX-7-798-095 dated 09.10.2013. Since appellant no. 2 is not the owner of copyrights in the works, it does not have the benefit of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, entitling it to institute a suit at a place of its business.

The impugned order

6. The learned Commercial Court found merit in the respondents' contention that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit.

7. In paragraph 30 of the plaint, the appellants had asserted that the Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit by virtue of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act as appellant no.2 carried on its business activities within the jurisdiction of the Court. The learned Commercial Court found that the said claim was untenable as `admittedly, the owner of the copyright CATIA is plaintiff no.1'.

8. The learned Commercial Court rejected the contention that the appellants were collective own