Introduction:

In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court affirmed the jurisdiction of a Bengaluru court to try a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, even if neither party resides within its territorial jurisdiction. The Court’s decision highlights the primacy of the cause of action in determining jurisdictional matters, emphasizing Section 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) over Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act.

Arguments:

The plaintiff argued that the cause of action arose in Bengaluru due to trademark infringement and passing off by the defendants within the city. Conversely, the defendants contended that jurisdiction was governed by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, requiring the suit to be filed where the plaintiff’s principal office or any defendant’s residence or business is located.

Court’s Judgement:

The Court held that Section 20(c) of the CPC, which links jurisdiction to the cause of action, prevails over Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. It emphasized the independent nature of Section 20 clauses and rejected the defendants’ argument based on the absence of their subordinate office in Bengaluru. The Court underscored that the defendants’ individual status precludes them from invoking the Corporation’s defense under Section 20 explanation. Ultimately, the Court affirmed Bengaluru’s jurisdiction based on the cause of action.