Territorial jurisdiction in trade mark suits survives under Section 20 CPC despite Section 134 Trade Marks Act's additional forum

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure continues to govern territorial jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business, or the cause of action arises wholly or in part. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act does not override or impliedly repeal that provision; it only creates an additional forum for trade mark and passing off suits. Because the offending goods were sold in Delhi, part of the cause of action arose there, and the jurisdiction objection failed. The court therefore held that territorial jurisdiction existed to entertain the infringement, passing off and unfair competition suit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 excluded or overrode Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The suit was founded on infringement, passing off and unfair competition. The plaintiff invoked territorial jurisdiction on the basis that the offending goods were being sold in Delhi, thereby relying on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant contended that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a special provision with an overriding effect because it contains a non obstante clause, and therefore Section 20 stood excluded.

Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 continues to govern institution of suits where the defendant resides, carries on business, or where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not displace that provision. It creates an additional forum for suits relating to trade marks and passing off, and its non obstante clause does not amount to implied repeal of Section 20. On the facts, the sale of the offending product in Delhi constituted part of the cause of action, and the defendant had also not denied that circumstance.

Conclusion: The court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and the objection based on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 failed. The appeal was without merit.

---