Territorial jurisdiction in composite IP suits depends on each cause of action; copyright forum provisions do not cover trade mark claims.

Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act provides an additional forum for copyright claims, but it does not extend territorial jurisdiction to a separate trade mark claim, which must satisfy Section 20 CPC. A composite suit cannot be maintained where the court lacks jurisdiction over one cause of action, and the later Trade Marks Act, 1999 provisions could not govern a suit instituted in 2001. The objection to territorial jurisdiction was also not waived, because it was raised in the written statement and earlier interlocutory participation did not amount to waiver. The suit was therefore not maintainable in its existing form, and amendment of the plaint was required to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a composite suit combining claims under the Copyright Act and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. (ii) Whether the defendants had waived the objection to territorial jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the District Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a composite suit combining claims under the Copyright Act and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 confers an additional forum for copyright claims, while the territorial jurisdiction for claims under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 has to be tested under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The additional forum under the Copyright Act does not by itself confer jurisdiction for the trade mark claim. The subsequent Trade Marks Act, 1999 with Section 134(2) could not govern a suit instituted in 2001 for deciding territorial jurisdiction. A composite suit cannot be maintained in a court lacking jurisdiction over one of the causes of action.

Conclusion: The suit was not wholly maintainable before the District Court, Kottayam in its existing form; the plaint required amendment if the suit was to proceed there.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants had waived the objection to territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The objection to territorial jurisdiction had been raised in the written statement, and the earlier conduct during interlocutory proceedings did not amount to a waiver. A jurisdictional objection of this nature was not lost merely because it had not been pressed at an earlier interim stage.

Conclusion: The plea of waiver was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order of the court below was set aside, and the plaintiff was given liberty to seek amendment of the plaint so that the suit could be brought within the court's territorial jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: An additional forum conferred for copyright suits does not extend to a separate trade mark claim lacking territorial jurisdiction, and a composite suit cannot be entertained unless the court has jurisdiction over all material causes of action.

---