Special forum under copyright and trade mark law is limited by territorial principles and cannot justify unrelated forum shopping.

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act confer an additional, plaintiff-convenience-based forum, enlarging the ordinary territorial rule under Section 20 CPC. That special forum is limited by the statutory scheme and object: it is meant to remove hardship, not to permit unrestricted forum shopping or suit at an unrelated place. Where the plaintiff carries on business at the place where the cause of action has arisen, the suit should ordinarily be brought there, and a branch or subordinate office at a distant place does not by itself create territorial jurisdiction if no part of the cause of action arose there.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 create an additional forum independent of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether a plaintiff carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also arisen can institute the suit at a distant place merely because it has a branch or subordinate office there.

Issue (i): Whether Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 create an additional forum independent of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The provisions were enacted to confer a special and additional forum on the plaintiff at the place where it actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain. Their non-obstante clauses enlarge the ordinary venue rule under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but do not permit the plaintiff to ignore the statutory scheme when the cause of action has also arisen at the place of its residence or principal business. The object of the enactments is to remove hardship to the plaintiff, not to create an unrestricted choice of distant fora.

Conclusion: The provisions do create an additional forum, but only within the limits recognized by their object and scheme.

Issue (ii): Whether a plaintiff carrying on business at a place where the cause of action has also arisen can institute the suit at a distant place merely because it has a branch or subordinate office there.

Analysis: The Court applied a purposive interpretation and the mischief rule to hold that the legislative intent was to prevent inconvenience to the plaintiff, not to enable forum shopping or to drag defendants to unconnected places. Where the plaintiff's head office or principal place of business is at the place where the cause of action has arisen, that place must ordinarily be chosen. The presence of a branch office elsewhere does not justify suing at that other place when no part of the cause of action has arisen there. In such circumstances, territorial jurisdiction is not conferred on the distant court.

Conclusion: No. The suit could not be instituted at the distant place merely on the basis of a branch or subordinate office.

Final Conclusion: The statutory forum provisions in the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act are additional and beneficial, but they cannot be used to defeat the territorial scheme or to encourage abuse by selecting an unrelated forum when the cause of action and the plaintiff's principal place of business are elsewhere.

Ratio Decidendi: The special forum under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is an additional, plaintiff-convenience-based forum, but it cannot be invoked to sue at a place unconnected with the cause of action when the plaintiff's principal place of business is itself at the place where the cause of action has arisen.

---