'Place Of Purchase, Not Residence Of Customer Relevant For Determining Jurisdiction U/S 134(2) Of Trademarks Act': Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the place of purchase of goods, and not the residence of the customer, is relevant for determining territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court ruled that mere delivery of goods to customers residing within the Court's jurisdiction is not sufficient to establish jurisdiction when the actual purchases were made elsewhere.Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a commercial intellectual property suit filed by M/s Arcee Electronics alleging trademark infringement and passing off by the defendants, who had adopted the mark “ARCEEIKA” for their business. The plaintiff contended that its registered mark “ARCEE” had been copied in font, colour and business model, and relied on invoices showing delivery of its goods to customers residing in Mumbai to assert that jurisdiction lay with the Bombay High Court.The defendants challenged jurisdiction by filing an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. They argued that all of the plaintiff's showrooms and its head office were situated in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District, and that no business was carried on in Mumbai city. The Court accepted the defendants' contention, holding that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act grants jurisdiction to the Court where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. Since all showrooms and offices of the plaintiff were outside Mumbai, jurisdiction could not be conferred merely on the basis of delivery to a customer in Mumbai. The Court observed that the determinative factor was the place where the purchase was made, which in this case was Navi Mumbai or Raigad, not Mumbai city.“… the place at which the sale has occurred would determine Plaintiff's place of business. Mere delivery of goods at the customer's residence would not mean that the Plaintiff carries on business at the place of residence of the customer,” the Court observed. Taking note of the precedents, the Court noted that a Suit for infringement of trade mark can be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where part of the cause of action has arisen by having recourse to provisions of Section 20 of the Code. However, it observed that Plaintiff has neither pleaded nor demonstrated that any part of the cause of action for filing the present Suit has arisen within the limits of Mumbai city. Hence, the Court said:“… present Suit does not satisfy the requirement under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act or Section 20 of the Code. Neither the Plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai city nor any part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai city.”Accordingly, the Court returned the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, directing the plaintiff to approach the appropriate court having jurisdiction. It thus allowed the interim application filed by the defendants.Case Title: Arcee Electronics v. Arceeika & Ors. [COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 19290 OF 2024]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Place Of Purchase, Not Residence Of Customer Relevant For Determining Jurisdiction U/S 134(2) Of Trademarks Act': Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

'Place Of Purchase, Not Residence Of Customer Relevant For Determining Jurisdiction U/S 134(2) Of Trademarks Act': Bombay High Court

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Saksham Vaishya

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers