Territorial jurisdiction in trade mark suits turns on cause of action and business location, not head office alone.

Territorial jurisdiction for a trade mark suit was examined by reading Section 20 CPC harmoniously with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Although the agreement was executed at Bengaluru and the plaintiff had its head office there, the pleadings showed that the alleged infringement and cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh, where the defendant carried on business. The explanation to Section 20 CPC treats a corporation as carrying on business at its principal office and also at a subordinate office where the cause of action arises. On that basis, the plaintiff's Bengaluru head office did not by itself confer jurisdiction, and the plaint's return for presentation before the proper court in Madhya Pradesh was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was rightly returned for presentation before the proper jurisdictional court in Madhya Pradesh, or whether Bengaluru courts had jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Analysis: The suit arose out of an agreement executed at Bengaluru, and the plaintiff had its head office there. However, the pleadings and surrounding facts also showed that the alleged infringing activity and the cause of action arose in Madhya Pradesh, where the defendant was carrying on business. The explanation to Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 treats a corporation as carrying on business at its principal office and also at the place of a subordinate office where the cause of action arises. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits institution of a suit where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, but that right is to be read purposively and in harmony with Section 20 CPC. Applying the principles stated in the relied-upon decisions, the presence of the head office at Bengaluru did not, by itself, displace jurisdiction where the cause of action had arisen in Madhya Pradesh and where the plaintiff also carried on business through its subordinate office.

Conclusion: The return of the plaint was justified and the objection to territorial jurisdiction failed.

---