Territorial jurisdiction in IP suits is limited to convenience forums linked to the cause of action, not unrelated offices.

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was construed as providing an additional convenience forum, but not an unrestricted choice of venue detached from the dispute. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 remained the general territorial rule, and the special copyright and trade mark provisions were read to permit suit where the plaintiff resides or carries on business only if the cause of action also arises there. A plaintiff could not file merely because it had an office in a place unconnected with the cause of action; the same principle was treated as applicable to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaintiff can institute a copyright infringement suit at a place where it carries on business but where no part of the cause of action has arisen, and whether Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 overrides the territorial scheme of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was construed as conferring an additional forum for the convenience of the copyright holder, but not as creating an unrestricted choice divorced from the cause of action. The territorial rule in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was treated as the general framework governing place of suing, and the Explanation to that section was read as reflecting the relevance of the defendant's office and the situs of the cause of action. The Court held that the legislative purpose behind the special forum provisions in copyright and trade mark law was to relieve plaintiffs from hardship, not to permit selection of a forum inconvenient to both sides or unrelated to the dispute. Applying that principle, where the cause of action arises at the place where the plaintiff has its principal or subordinate office, suit may be filed there, but not at a place where no part of the cause of action has arisen merely because the plaintiff has an office there. The same reasoning was treated as applicable to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Conclusion: The plaintiff could not maintain the suit in Delhi when no part of the cause of action arose there, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: The special jurisdictional provisions in copyright and trade mark law confer an additional convenience forum only where the cause of action arises at the place where the plaintiff resides or carries on business; they do not authorize filing in a forum unconnected with the cause of action.

---