Back
Rejects ' Plea to Sue Over 'S. Preethi' College Name
Introduction
The
recently dismissed an application filed by Madurai-based
Private Limited and
seeking leave to sue an educational trust in Sivagangai for
. Justice A.D. Maria Clete held that no part of the
arose within the court's Chennai jurisdiction, making the
under
unsustainable.
The Dispute
The applicants, who run
and
under common management, claimed continuous use of the "
" mark since
and hold registrations in Classes 41 and 44. In
, they discovered that the
was using the name
"S. PREETHI GROUP OF COLLEGES"
for its educational institutions in Arasanoor, Sivagangai District, and proposed to start a nursing college under "S. PREETHI NURSING COLLEGE". The applicants alleged infringement and
and sought to file a suit in the
.
The Jurisdictional Argument
To establish jurisdiction in Chennai, the applicants relied on four factors: (1) their trademark registrations were obtained through the
; (2) they have regulatory dealings with state authorities in Chennai; (3) they draw students and patients from Chennai; and (4) the respondent's websites are accessible in Chennai and invite applications and enquiries. They argued that the respondent had
itself of the jurisdiction by maintaining interactive websites.
The Court's Analysis
The court carefully examined each factor. On trademark registration, it observed that the registration establishes
but is not an act of the respondent.
"If it were otherwise, every registered proprietor in this State could come to the
of this Court against any infringer anywhere in the State,"
the court noted.
Regarding the websites, the court scrutinized the printouts filed by the applicants. One website contained only a general enquiry form with no admissions portal or payment option. The proposed nursing college's website was unfinished, filled with dummy "Lorem ipsum" text and placeholder details, and marked "COMING SOON…." The court concluded that
"being accessible everywhere is the opposite of being aimed at one place."
The applicants failed to show any actual transaction, application, or instance of confusion originating from Chennai.
The court also rejected the argument based on students and patients from Chennai, holding that these describe the applicants' activities, not any act of the respondent. Under the test from , a must include an act done by the defendant. The applicants' own paragraph did not mention Chennai at all; it placed the respondent's acts in Sivagangai.
Key Observations
Justice Maria Clete made several critical observations:
"It is the act of the respondent pleaded to have been done within these local limits that the applicants must prove in order to obtain their decree."
"Were discovery part of the, its place would be wherever the plaintiff happened to be sitting, and the leave required bycould be obtained by the simple device of opening a web page within these limits."
"A wrong repeated every day is repeated every day at the place where it is being committed; repetition in time is not spread in space."
"A plaintiff may choose only among courts competent to receive the suit. Where the court has no such authority, there is no choice to be protected."
The court also distinguished the applicants' reliance on the " " from American jurisprudence, noting that such tests are used only as an aid in reading and where the only act attributed to the defendant is on the internet with no ascertainable place. They cannot supply a the plaint does not disclose.
Decision and Implications
The court dismissed the application and directed the registry to return the plaint. Even assuming a part of the
had arisen within Chennai, the court added that it would have declined leave on grounds of
, as the applicants and their institutions are in Madurai, while the respondent and the alleged use of the names are in Sivagangai. The decision reinforces that mere website accessibility and administrative connections with a forum are insufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction for trademark suits under
. The proper forum is where the defendant's acts occurred or where the plaintiff carries on business. This ruling clarifies the boundaries of jurisdiction in intellectual property cases involving online activities, particularly for litigants seeking to sue outside their natural forum.
