Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Tata SIA Airlines Limited, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.8499/2014. The trial court had dismissed I.A.No.2 filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC seeking return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The respondent, M/s. Vistara Voyages (India) Pvt. Ltd., had filed the suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from using the trademark 'Vistara' and for other reliefs. The respondent claimed that the petitioner's use of the mark 'Vistara' infringed their trademark. The petitioner contended that the trial court had no territorial jurisdiction as the petitioner had no place of business in Bangalore and the cause of action did not arise within its jurisdiction. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and the concept of territorial jurisdiction in trademark matters. It held that the trial court erred in dismissing the application as the suit lacked cause of action within its jurisdiction. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the return of the plaint to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Territorial Jurisdiction - Order 7 Rule 10 CPC - Return of Plaint - The trial court dismissed the application for return of plaint filed by the defendant on the ground that the court had territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that the suit for trademark infringement must be filed in the court within whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises, and mere registration of a domain name or presence of a website accessible in Bangalore does not confer jurisdiction. (Paras 1-10) B) Trademark Law - Territorial Jurisdiction - Cause of Action - The plaintiff's registered office is in Bangalore, but the defendant has no place of business in Bangalore. The alleged infringement occurred outside Bangalore. The court held that the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's location alone. (Paras 11-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in dismissing the application under Order 7 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2014 passed by the XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.8499/2014 is set aside. The trial court is directed to return the plaint to the respondent for presentation before the appropriate court having jurisdiction.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Cause of action
- Order 7 Rule 10 CPC
- Section 151 CPC
- Trademark infringement
- Place of business
- Domain name registration
