Introduction

1. Jurisdiction, a term ubiquitous in legal discourse, often eludes precise definition despite its frequent usage. As noted in the “American and English Encyclopaedia of Law,” jurisdiction stands as one of the most frequently defined yet contentious words in English law. Its importance cannot be overstated, as it determines the authority of courts to adjudicate matters and plays a pivotal role in legal proceedings.
2. Over the years, legal scholars have grappled with the task of defining jurisdiction, but consensus remains elusive. This lack of agreement may stem from differing interpretations of the elements encompassed by the concept. Nonetheless, despite the absence of a universally accepted definition, the legal community generally possesses a nuanced understanding of the notion conveyed by the term.
3. However, the absence of a precise definition has not been without consequences. Confusion and uncertainty have arisen. This ambiguity can cloud issues surrounding the court’s competence to handle specific cases or the validity of judgments rendered.
4. In India, Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) is meticulously crafted to uphold the principle of fairness and equity, particularly in favor of the defendant. This section embodies a defendant-centric approach, aiming to provide ample opportunity for the defendant to effectively defend themselves in legal proceedings. It mandates that a plaintiff may initiate a suit in a court within whose local jurisdiction the defendant voluntarily resides, conducts business, or is employed, ensuring that the defendant is not unduly burdened by having to defend the case in a distant or unfamiliar forum. Additionally, Section 20 of the CPC allows for the filing of suits in courts where the cause of action, the factual basis for the claim, either wholly or partially arose, further emphasizing the defendant’s right to defend themselves in a convenient and accessible venue. Thus, Section 20 of the CPC serves as a cornerstone of procedural fairness, striking a balance between the interests of both parties and facilitating a just and equitable adjudication process.
5. On the other hand, the amended Copyright Act, 1957, and Trademarks Act, 1999, introduce provisions governing the jurisdiction of civil courts in cases of infringement, primarily considering the convenience of the plaintiff. These statutes provide the plaintiff with the option to choose a court for initiating legal action, often favoring the plaintiff’s convenience and interests. Such provisions aim to streamline the litigation process for intellectual property disputes and ensure efficient enforcement of rights.

6. This article provides a comparative analysis of jurisdictional provisions under the Civil Procedure Code, the Trademarks Act, and the Copyright Act, exploring how these laws are interpreted by Indian courts in intellectual property disputes. Through key case studies, it highlights the evolving judicial approaches and the ongoing need for clarity and consistency in legal application.  

Mischief Rule of Interpretation 

2. The Trademarks Act and the Copyright Act have undergone scrutiny under the Mischief Rule of Interpretation, as established in Heydon’s Case. This rule necessitates the examination of four factors to interpret statutes effectively: 

1. Firstly, the state of the law before the enactment of these statutes is considered;
2. Secondly, any defects or mischiefs in the law that the statutes aim to address are identified;
3. Thirdly, the specific remedies provided by the statutes to rectify these defects are examined; and
4. Lastly, the underlying objectives behind these remedies are analyzed.

Through this interpretative lens, it becomes apparent that the jurisdiction clauses in these acts are plaintiff-centric. They aim to address the inconvenience and costs faced by injured parties, encouraging them to seek relief more conveniently and efficiently, thereby promoting access to justice. Notably, the geographical location of the defendants and the place where the cause of action arises are irrelevant in such cases. Sections 134(2) and 62(2) do not make any reference to the location of the cause of action or the defendants’ whereabouts. However, challenges such as forum shopping and inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of trademark laws persist. These challenges underscore the need for continued review and refinement of jurisdictional provisions to ensure fairness and consistency in the adjudication of trademark disputes.

Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia, 

• 8. In this case, the Supreme Court provided crucial insights into the statutory interpretation of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act. The Court emphasized that these provisions were enacted with a clear legislative intent to offer a remedy to plaintiffs, allowing them to initiate suits in the jurisdictions where they reside or conduct business, thereby preventing undue harassment of defendants by dragging them to distant locations. The objective behind incorporating these provisions into the Copyright Act and Trademarks Act was to address the challenges posed to plaintiffs by Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, ensuring that they are not deterred from pursuing infringement proceedings due to the inconvenience of distant court locations. However, the Court also recognized the need to prevent the abuse of these provisions and maintain public policy considerations. Consequently, it held that the convenience granted to plaintiffs under these provisions should be subject to certain restrictions. According to the Court’s ruling, if the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, in a jurisdiction where the plaintiff resides, conducts business, or has its head office, that jurisdiction will be deemed the appropriate forum for initiating the suit. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 62 of the Copyrights Act and Section 134 of the Trademarks Act are to be construed together and given a purposive interpretation, particularly in cases of passing off suits, which must adhere to the jurisdictional provisions outlined in Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Burger King Corporation v. Techchand Shewakramani & Ors

• 9. In this case, Delhi High Court emphasized that the provisions outlined in Section 134 of the Trademarks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act are supplementary to, rather than exclusive of, Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court clarified that if the plaintiff can establish a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the court under Section 20, there is no need to refer to Section 134. This ruling aligns with several other judicial precedents that have consistently upheld the principles elucidated in these landmark cases.

Manugraph India Ltd v. Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors

• 10. In this case, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Manugraph India Ltd, confirming that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the cause of action arising in different locations (Delhi and Kolhapur) rather than Mumbai, where the plaintiff’s registered office is located. The court interpreted Sections 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, and Section 62 of the Copyright Act to allow plaintiffs to file suits in the jurisdiction where they conduct business, including their principal office, even if no part of the cause of action occurred there. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia aimed to prevent the misuse of jurisdiction by filing suits in remote, subordinate offices with no real connection to the dispute, rather than restricting plaintiffs from filing suits in their principal place of business. This interpretation sought to balance the convenience of plaintiffs in intellectual property disputes while preventing potential abuse of jurisdictional provisions.

Conclusion

The divergent interpretations of jurisdictional provisions by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts highlight the ongoing judicial effort to balance convenience for plaintiffs with fairness to defendants in intellectual property disputes. The rulings underscore the need for clarity and consistency in applying these legal principles. As seen in the case of Manugraph India Ltd v. Simarq Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors, the Bombay High Court allowed jurisdiction based on the location of the plaintiff’s principal place of business, emphasizing the intent to prevent misuse of remote subordinate offices. In contrast, the Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors focused on the cause of action, requiring suits to be filed where it arose. Thesediffering approaches reflect the complex nature of jurisdictional issues and the necessity for continuous legal refinement. Moving forward, it is imperative for the judiciary to harmonize these interpretations to ensure equitable access to justice and efficient resolution of intellectual property disputes, fostering a legal environment that supports both plaintiffs and defendants.

Nishka Shah, Associate, Solomon & Co. 

About Solomon & Co.

Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law. 

“Disclaimer” 

The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.

Copyright © 2024 Solomon & Co., All rights reserved.