Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a commercial intellectual property suit filed by a partnership firm engaged in the sale of electronic goods, claiming infringement of its registered trademark 'ARCEE' and passing off by defendants who allegedly opened a showroom named 'ARCEEIKA' with similar colour, font, and type to steal business. The plaintiff firm was incorporated in 1986 at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, and operated 23 showrooms, one head office, and one warehouse across Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. Defendant No.2 filed an interim application under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The plaintiff argued that it carried on business in Mumbai city, supplied goods to customers in Mumbai, and that defendants also delivered goods in Mumbai, relying on invoices including one dated 2 September 2022 to a customer in Chembur. The defendants contended that the plaint was entirely silent on jurisdiction, contained no averment that plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai or that any cause of action arose there, and that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the suit must be filed in the District Court where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. The court reproduced paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the plaint, which showed business locations only in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District, and noted the total absence of any averment of plaintiff having a showroom or selling goods in Mumbai city. The court observed that oral submissions based on invoices could not substitute for the lack of pleadings establishing territorial jurisdiction. The judgment extract ends before the final operative order, so the ultimate decision on the return of plaint is not available from the provided text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Territorial Jurisdiction in Trade Mark Suits - Pleadings Must Establish Jurisdiction - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 134(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 10, Section 20 - Plaintiff's plaint contained no averment that it carried on business in Mumbai city or that any part of cause of action arose there; instead it expressly stated business in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. The court observed that oral submissions based on invoices cannot cure absence of pleading requirements for establishing territorial jurisdiction. Held that under Section 134(2) Trade Marks Act, 1999, suit must be filed in a District Court where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, and no such pleading existed for Mumbai (Paras 10-14). B) Trademark Law - Infringement and Passing Off - Business Presence as Basis for Jurisdiction - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 134(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VII Rule 10 - Plaintiff claimed it had 23 showrooms and one head office in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District, and relied on invoices to show deliveries in Mumbai; defendants argued plaint silent on jurisdiction and cited Manugraph India Limited v. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5334. The court noted that the plaint emphatically limited business to Navi Mumbai and Raigad with no Mumbai showroom or sales, and invoices at page 656 and Exhibit-EE did not demonstrate delivery in Mumbai. Held that mere business outside Mumbai and unpleaded invoices are insufficient to invoke Bombay High Court's jurisdiction (Paras 3-6, 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Bombay High Court has territorial jurisdiction to try the trademark infringement and passing off suit under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the plaint does not plead that the plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai or that any cause of action arose there; and whether oral submissions based on invoices can cure such pleading deficiency.
Law Points
- Under Section 134(2) Trade Marks Act
- 1999
- a suit for infringement must be filed in a District Court where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain
- plaint must plead jurisdictional facts
- oral submissions and invoices cannot substitute for absent averments.
