Jurisdiction under the Designs Act, 2000 cannot be ousted merely on basis of cancellation pleas unless substantive grounds are presented, justifying transfer to higher courts.

ORDER :

1. Plaintiff instituted three separate suits, claiming itself to have a registered Copyright of three different Designs, for manufacturing/sale of carpet and alleging infringement of its registered Design by the respondent-defendant, prayed for issuance of a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant as also prayed to award damages.

2. Plaintiff filed these suits before the District Judge, Jaipur Metro by virtue of proviso appended to Sub Section 2 of Section 2 2 of the Designs Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the Act of 2000’) which later on came to be transferred to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro.

3. Plaintiff and defendant in all three suits are common parties. Defendant in all three suits, submitted written statement, taking a defence therein that the design in question, of which plaintiff is claiming to have registered copyright and his absolute right to use, is not a new or original design.

4. Thereafter, plaintiff himself moved an application under Section 22 (4) of the Act of 2000 before Additional District Judge, stating inter alia that since defendant has taken a plea in its written statements, out of grounds enumerated under Section 19 of the Act of 2000 for cancellation of registration, the suits should be transferred to the High Court as the jurisdiction of District Judge stands ousted.

5. On such application of plaintiff, Additional District & Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur vide order dated 27.03.2019 transferred all three suits to the High Court for decision.

6. Hence, in this manner these three suits, along with a contempt petition filed by petitioner-plaintiff have come before this Court for decision.

7. At the outset it is noteworthy that the High Court of judicature of Rajasthan does not have original civil jurisdiction and in the State of Rajasthan at Jaipur, after coming into effect of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short, ‘Commercial Act, 2015’), Commercial Courts have been constituted under Section 3 of the Commercial Act, 2015. As per definition of ‘commercial dispute’, prescribed under Section 2 (c)(xvii) of Act, the disputes pertaining to “intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications and semiconductor integrated circuits” are included in ‘commercial dispute’. Therefore, disputes related to design are required to be heard by Commercial Court at Jaipur or by the Commercial Division Court of High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur.

8. Hence, in that view, this Court deemed it just and proper to hear the counsel for both the parties on the jurisdictional issue, before proceeding further in these suits on merits. In the previous order dated 10.09.2025, this Court observed as under:

“12. With the consent of counsel for both the parties before proceeding with the present suit on merits, this Court would like to hear and decide the jurisdiction of High Court, to entertain and decide the present suit, on merits. Counsel for both the parties may address this legal issue on the next date of hearing.”

9. Thus, with the consent of counsel for both the parties, afresh arguments have been heard on the jurisdictional issue as to which Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide these three issues for infringement of registered design of plaintiff and damages, whether District Court or Commercial Court or Commercial Division Court of High Court at Jaipur and whether the order dated 27.03.2019,