Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

iv) The Branch Office of the appellant-Company is situated at Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai, which is well within the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the appellant chose to institute a composite suit under provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 r/w Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 since it provides an additional jurisdiction to institute the suit, where, the plaintiff resides/carries on business activities. http://www.judis.nic.in v. The appellant also filed O.A.Nos.879 to 883 of 2017 seeking interim injunction, restraining the respondent and their servants,agents and anyone claiming under them from infringing the appellant's trademark and from selling/advertising/passing off of the products using their trademark. In the said O.A.Nos.879 to 883 of 2017 an exparte order of interim injunction was granted on 29.09.2017 and the same was extended from time to time until the date of the impugned order dated 03.07.2018. Notice was also ordered in the application for joinder of cause of action and the same is still pending as on date.

5. The learned counsel furthermore contended that since the appellant is having Branch Office at Thambu Chetty Street and carrying on its business through its Branch Office and in terms of Section 134(2) of the http://www.judis.nic.in Trademarks Act 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Ac, 1957, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit, as they are carrying on the business in terms of the above section which would give appropriate jurisdiction to file the present suit, eventhough the plaintiff's principal place of business is not lying within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, the learned Single Judge while considering this aspect, worngly held that term “carrying on business” mentioned in Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, means the principal place of business of the plaintiff and not the Branch Office, where, the plaintiff is alleged to be carrying on its business. Thus, the learned Single Judge by arriving at such wrong conclusion, allowed the application for rejection of the plaint and consequently, rejected the plaint filed by the appellant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in MANU/TN/4102/2016 in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd., Vs Sanjay Dalia and Ors, wherein, in Paragraph Nos.19 and 47, it is held as follows:-

8. Lastly, the learned counsel contended that even assuming that the http://www.judis.nic.in appellant is the owner of the trade mark ''ROOBINI'' and the respondent/defendant is not carrying on any business at the place, where, the appellant is carrying on its business, since the appellant themselves admitted that they are carrying on business at the Branch Office, as per the provisions of the Section 134 (2) of the Trademark Act and Section 62 of Copyrights Act, even assuming that the respondent is infringing the appellant's trademark, the plaintiff have the jurisdiction to file the suit only at the place, where its principal place of business is situated. In the present case, the suit was not filed based on where the principal place of business is situated. Therefore, he strongly contended that the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Further, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:-

12. Admittedly, the appellant is carrying on business at the branch office situated at Thambu Chetty Street. Therefore, they filed the suit before this Court for infringement of the trademark “ROOBINI” and passing off actions by the respondent. The appellant's principal place of business is http://www.judis.nic.in situated at Kodungaiyur. However, the respondent is carrying on business neither in the appellant's principal place of business nor at the place, where, the appellant's branch office is situated. Therefore, the respondent strongly contended that the appellant is not entitled to file the present suit due to the reason that cause of action arisen for initiation of the suit is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, he referred to section 20 CPC, which prevents the plaintiff from filing any suit within the place, where, no cause of action arose or the defendant's place of business is situated. As per Section 20, no cause of action arose at Chennai. Therefore, he pleaded for rejection of the plaint. The learned Single Judge also considered such plea of the respondent at length and by applying the provisions of Section 20 CPC, Section 134 (2) of Trademark Act 1999, Section 62 of the Copyrights Act, 1957 arrived at the conclusion that the entire cause of action arose only at the place, where, the respondent is actually carrying on business, i.e. Kodungaiyur, Thiruvallur District. Therefore, institution of present suit is only at Thiruvallur District. Further, the appellant has not satisfied the ingredients laid down under section 134 (2) of the Trademarks Act and Section 62 (2) of the Copyrights Act, 1957. However, we cannot accept the finding of the learned Single Judge. In the present case, the appellant is http://www.judis.nic.in carrying on business at Kodungaiyur, where, the principal place of business is situated and also at Thambu Chetty Street, where, the Branch Office is situated. We have also examined the provisions of the Section 20 CPC, 132 (2) of Trademarks Act and Section 62 of Copyrights Act, which confers right to the appellant to institute the suit, where, they are carrying on business activities. Here, the meaning of word 'carrying on business' includes the business being carried on through its principal place of business or branch office. Trademarks Act and Copyrights Act are the beneficial legislations. The said Acts empowers the plaintiff to file the suit eventhough no cause of action arise at the principal place of business/branch office, where, the plaintiff is carrying on the business. It is only a convenience to the appellant to choose the forum to file the suit against the defendant. No doubt, this is an efficacious remedy provided to the plaintiff so as to enable them to file the suit, where, he is residing or carrying on business, as the case may be.