Trade mark jurisdiction and forum convenience: registry location alone does not create cause of action, but forum suitability may still matter under Clause 12.

Registration of a trade mark at Chennai, by itself, does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Madras High Court, because cause of action is a bundle of facts and registration is only one relevant component of that bundle. The location of the Trade Mark Registry and the entry on its register may be considered, but they do not alone fix the situs of the mark or establish jurisdiction without further connecting facts. When leave to sue is sought under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and only part of the cause of action arises within the forum, the Court may apply principles akin to forum conveniens and assess whether the chosen forum is appropriate by considering convenience, evidence, and other connecting factors.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the situs of the Trade Mark Registry in Chennai and the name being on its register would itself give rise to cause of action to institute a suit in the Madras High Court; (ii) Whether the principles of forum conveniens or analogous principles apply to consideration of an application for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in case part of cause of action arises at Chennai.

Issue (i): Whether the situs of the Trade Mark Registry in Chennai and the name being on its register would itself give rise to cause of action to institute a suit in the Madras High Court.

Analysis: Cause of action consists of a bundle of facts. Registration of a trade mark is a relevant fact and may be one component of the bundle, but it does not by itself complete the cause of action. The mere location of the Trade Mark Registry at Chennai does not, without more connecting facts, fix the situs of the mark or confer territorial jurisdiction. The preferable approach is to examine the connecting factors relevant to the dispute and the factual nexus with the forum.

Conclusion: No. The situs of registration at Chennai by itself does not give rise to a cause of action to institute the suit in the Madras High Court, though it may be one relevant factor among others.

Issue (ii): Whether the principles of forum conveniens or analogous principles apply to consideration of an application for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in case part of cause of action arises at Chennai.

Analysis: Under Clause 12, where only part of the cause of action arises within jurisdiction, leave is discretionary and the Court must consider the appropriateness of the forum. The convenience of the parties, availability of evidence, and other connecting factors are relevant to deciding whether the chosen forum is suitable. The doctrine may not operate in the same way as in ordinary civil proceedings under the Code, but principles akin to forum conveniens do apply when leave to sue is sought under Clause 12.

Conclusion: Yes. In considering leave to sue under Clause 12, the Court may apply principles akin to forum conveniens and assess whether the chosen forum is appropriate.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by rejecting the proposition that registry location alone confers jurisdiction, while affirming that the suitability of the forum remains a relevant consideration for leave under Clause 12.

Ratio Decidendi: For territorial jurisdiction in a trade mark dispute, registration at a particular registry is only one relevant fact in a broader bundle of facts, and leave under Clause 12 depends on the appropriateness of the forum assessed on connecting factors and convenience.

---