The recent case in question involves a plaintiff seeking to stop the use of the
trademark "KRANTI KAKA" in connection with betel nuts, filed under the
Trademarks Act of 1999 and the Copyright Act of 1957. The territorial
jurisdiction of court was invoked on the basis of sale. The defendant, on the
other hand, contested the jurisdiction of the court based on the location of
their businesses and the alleged infringement within the district. This article
provides an analytical overview of the case and discusses the principles
surrounding territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits.
Background of the Case:
In this case, the appellant is the plaintiff, and the respondent is the
defendant. The crux of the matter revolves around the rejection of the
plaintiff's complaint by the Ld. Additional District Judge (A DJ) in Dahod,
citing a lack of jurisdiction under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (CPC). The lawsuit primarily sought a permanent injunction, profit
accounts, and damages against the unauthorized use of the trademark "KRANTI
KAKA" in connection with betel nuts.
Key Jurisdictional Disputes:
The central dispute in this case arises from the geographical locations of both
the plaintiff and the defendant. Neither party was a resident of Dahod, where
the case was filed. The plaintiff conducted their business operations for profit
in Surat, while the defendant claimed that submitting invoices from either party
did not establish the cause of action.
The Legal Principle:
The court adhered to a well-established legal principle when analyzing the
jurisdictional aspect of the case. It stated that the defendant's plea, whether
in their written statement or an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC,
is irrelevant in determining jurisdiction.
The Court's Decision:
Despite the plaintiff residing in Surat and owning a factory in the Surat
district, and the defendant conducting business in Moraiya and Ahmedabad while
residing in Wadhwan, the suit was filed in Dahod. The plaintiff argued that part
of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Dahod
District Court on the basis of sale of product at Dahod.
However, the court found that the defendant did not produce, market, or process
betel nuts within the boundaries of the Dahod District Court. The plaintiff
relied on invoices allegedly extracted from the Trademark Registry website to
establish territorial jurisdiction, but the court dismissed this interpretation,
deeming it an abuse of the law.
The Concluding Note:
The case at hand underscores that the mere sale of goods at a particular place,
without a substantial connection to the cause of action, cannot be the sole
basis for invoking territorial jurisdiction. The court's decision in this matter
upholds established legal principles and ensures that trademark suits are filed
in relevant and appropriate jurisdictions, preventing potential abuse of the
Case Law Discussed:
Case Title:Hasmukhbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel Vs Husenali Anwarali
Date of Judgement:25/09/2023
Case No. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2172 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: N. A.
Name of Hon'ble Court: Gujarat High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: J C DoshiH.J.
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public
Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it
is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception,
interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539