provision contained in the explanation in section 20 of the Code
has been read into section 134(2) of the Trade Marks ... used in all the three
provisions (i.e., section 20 of the Code, section 134(2) of the Trade marks
Act, 1999 and section
single Judge, inter alia, held that though Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act start with ... District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Sub-section (2) of Section 134, defines the expression 'District Court having jurisdiction' found
have been instituted by the respondent No.2 /
plaintiff No.2 is correct.
17. Section 134 of the said Act has already been extracted above ... clauses (a)
and (b) above of sub-section (1). In other words, Section 134(2) of the said
Act is relatable only to suits
jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by
relying upon Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2)
of the Copyright ... Section 134 of the TM Act, 1999 and
Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, I consider it appropriate to
reproduce the same herein-
Section
taking advantage of the provisions of section
134(2) 12 or section 62(2) , respectively. Section 134 , therefore,
provides an additional recourse, to a plaintiff ... Supreme Court was concerned, did not contain a provision similar to
Section 134(2) of the present Trade Marks Act , with which
these two
sections. If we view the provisions of Section 20 as a three-tier
structure, then the provisions of Section 134(2) and Section ... recognize that an additional forum had been provided under Section
62(2) and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by including
Letters Patent, but a case covered by Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore ... District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Sub-section (2) of Section 134 , defines the expression 'District Court having jurisdiction' found
this respect under Section
134(2) is better than that under Section 62(2) . The explanation to Section
134 as noted above ... negating expansion of the scope
of Section 20 of the CPC intended by Section 134 (2) . Even otherwise, as
already observed above, once permitted
single Judge, inter alia, held that though Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act start with ... District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Sub-section (2) of Section 134, defines the expression 'District Court having jurisdiction' found
excluded by the operation of the non-obstante clause in
Section 134 (2) of the Act. It is submitted that the provisions of Clause ... registered user."
Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, corresponding to
Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, reads
