Copyright jurisdiction under Section 62(2): plaintiff's business location can found suit venue even without identical goods nexus

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act was construed as a special forum provision departing from the general territorial rule in Section 20 CPC, giving a copyright owner the choice to sue where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. The court held that this choice is not limited to business connected with the specific goods alleged to be infringing. On the facts, the plaintiff carried on business in Delhi through Indian distributors and collaborators, so territorial jurisdiction was available. The objection to jurisdiction was therefore rejected at the threshold stage, and the plaint could not be rejected on that ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, despite the defendants not residing or carrying on business within the jurisdiction, and whether the plaint could be rejected or the interim order recalled on that basis.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 was treated as a departure from the general rule in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The provision was construed purposively to advance the object of giving the copyright owner a choice of forum at the place where it actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, rather than forcing the injured party to pursue the infringer at the latter's place of business. The court held that the plaintiff carried on business in Delhi through its Indian distributors and collaborators, and that the statute does not impose a further limitation that the plaintiff's business in Delhi must relate to the very goods whose infringement is complained of. The authorities relied on by the defendants were distinguished, and the challenge based on territorial jurisdiction was rejected at this threshold stage.

Conclusion: The court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the plaint could not be rejected for want of jurisdiction at that stage.

Ratio Decidendi: For a suit for infringement of copyright, Section 62(2) confers jurisdiction on the court where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, and this forum choice is not confined to business activity in the identical goods forming the subject matter of the infringement claim.

---