Trademark Infringement Suits Cannot Be Tried Below District Court: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has firmly ruled that trademark infringement suits must be instituted and tried exclusively in the District Court, rejecting the argument that such suits can be transferred to a Munsiff Court based on their pecuniary value. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., presiding over a single bench, dismissed a civil revision petition that challenged the maintainability of a trademark suit before the Additional District Court, Kozhikode.

The Dispute Behind the Ruling

The suit in question was filed by M/s Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited (the plaintiff) against M/s Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd and its directors, Shajeer Manchinchery and Shayista Pantha Pulan (the defendants). The plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered trademark and sought a prohibitory injunction and damages. The total value of the suit was ₹5,10,000—₹1,000 for the injunction and ₹5,00,000 in damages.

The defendants moved an application (IA No. 3 of 2025) contending that the suit could not be tried by the District Court. They argued that under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court begins at a higher threshold, and that a suit valued at ₹5.10 lakh should be tried by the Munsiff Court.

The Clash of Jurisdictional Arguments

The petitioners’ central submission was that while Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires a trademark infringement suit to be instituted in a court not inferior to the District Court, the same provision does not mandate that the suit be tried by the District Court. They sought to draw a distinction between the court of institution and the court of trial, relying on Section 9 CPC and the Kerala Civil Courts Act.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, maintained that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act operates as a special jurisdictional provision. It prohibits the very institution of a trademark suit in any court below the District Court, and therefore, the District Court alone has the competence to both entertain and adjudicate such suits.

How the High Court Resolved the Issue

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. methodically dismantled the petitioners’ argument. The court first observed that Section 9 CPC does not, by itself, create a distinction between the court where a suit is instituted and the court competent to try it. Such a distinction can only arise through a lawful transfer or a special statutory provision—not from Section 9 alone.

Turning to Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, the court held that the phrase “having jurisdiction” does not necessarily mean “having pecuniary jurisdiction.” Instead, Section 134 must be read as a special provision that overrides the ordinary CPC framework to the extent specified. The provision expressly bars the institution of a trademark suit in any court inferior to the District Court. Allowing the suit to be transferred to a lower court for trial on the ground of pecuniary value would render this statutory mandate meaningless.

The court also noted that the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the High Court, has designated all District Courts and Additional District Courts in the State as Commercial Courts under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. These courts are empowered to handle commercial disputes arising under the Trade Marks Act, among other statutes.

Key Observations from the Judgment

The court made several critical observations that clarify the law:

“The District Court, for the purposes of Section 134, has to be regarded as the lowest grade competent court to try a trade mark suit, under Section 15 CPC. To hold otherwise would result in a court inferior to the District Court ultimately trying a suit which Section 134 expressly prohibits from being instituted and would render the statutory mandate that the suit be instituted before a District Court largely otiose.”

“Section 134 must be taken as a special jurisdictional provision, overriding the ordinary CPC position to the extent specified.”

“Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act does not contemplate a suit being instituted in a District Court merely as a matter of form and thereafter being transferred to a court inferior to the District Court for trial on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction.”

The Final Decision and Its Implications

The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition, holding that “the only court where the plaintiff could have instituted the suit was the District Court.” The decision reinforces the exclusive jurisdiction of the District Court in trademark infringement matters, regardless of the suit’s valuation. This ruling settles any ambiguity about whether a trademark suit valued below the District Court’s pecuniary limit can be shunted to a lower court.

For trademark holders and litigants, the message is clear: all infringement suits under the Trade Marks Act must be filed and heard only in the District Court, ensuring a uniform and specialized adjudicatory forum for such disputes.