Composite IP suits may sustain territorial jurisdiction on forum-based pleadings and plaintiff valuation for unsettled accounts.

A suit for temporary injunction and rendition of accounts may be valued for jurisdiction on the plaintiff's stated valuation where the claim concerns unsettled accounts, and a nominal valuation is not required. In a composite intellectual property suit, prima facie territorial jurisdiction can be founded on the plaint pleadings, including alleged sales and threatened infringing activity within the forum, together with the copyright jurisdiction provision. The overlap between copyright and trade mark reliefs did not defeat jurisdiction where the court otherwise had jurisdiction over the copyright aspect and the pleadings showed forum-based activity. The jurisdictional objections were rejected and the matter was directed to be considered on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit for temporary injunction and rendition of accounts. (ii) Whether the court had prima facie territorial jurisdiction to entertain the composite suit involving copyright and trade mark claims.

Issue (i): Whether the court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit for temporary injunction and rendition of accounts.

Analysis: The valuation adopted by the plaintiff for the relief of rendition of accounts was accepted as the proper basis for jurisdiction. The objection that such a suit had to be valued at a nominal amount was rejected in view of the binding view that a suit for unsettled accounts carries fixed court-fee and may be valued as stated by the plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes.

Conclusion: The court had pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Issue (ii): Whether the court had prima facie territorial jurisdiction to entertain the composite suit involving copyright and trade mark claims.

Analysis: In a composite suit of this nature, the allegations in the plaint are relevant, and at the stage of temporary injunction the court may examine pleadings, affidavits, documents and other material to form a prima facie view on jurisdiction. The claim of territorial jurisdiction was supported by the pleaded sale of goods in Delhi, the threatened sale of infringing goods in Delhi, and the invocation of Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The reasoning that jurisdiction existed for the copyright claim but not for the connected trade mark relief was not accepted. The court followed the view that the overlapping nature of such claims permits consideration of the trade mark injunction where the court otherwise has jurisdiction over the copyright aspect and where there are pleadings showing activity within the forum.

Conclusion: The court had prima facie territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Final Conclusion: The order refusing temporary injunction and rejecting jurisdiction was set aside, and the application was directed to be considered on merits, with the interim arrangement continued until disposal of the application.

Ratio Decidendi: In a composite intellectual property suit, prima facie territorial jurisdiction may be sustained where the plaint pleads acts within the forum and the court has jurisdiction over the copyright claim, and a suit for unsettled accounts may be valued by the plaintiff for jurisdictional purposes.

---