Trade mark territorial jurisdiction allows an additional plaintiff forum and cannot justify rejecting a plaint on that ground alone.

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act creates an additional forum for a trademark plaintiff to sue where it actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, and it must be read purposively with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which continues to govern suits based on the defendant's residence or the place where the cause of action arises. The plaintiff is not required to travel to the defendant's forum, but if the plaintiff also carries on business where the cause of action arises, the suit must be filed there. Applying that approach, the plaint could not be rejected merely because the plaintiff did not carry on business within jurisdiction, and the suit was restored for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a suit for infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was maintainable before the Court on the basis of territorial jurisdiction under Section 134.

Analysis: Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 creates an additional forum for a plaintiff to institute a suit where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, and this provision is to be read purposively. It does not exclude the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which continues to govern suits based on the defendant's residence or the place where cause of action arises. The legal position stated by the Supreme Court is that the plaintiff need not travel to the defendant's forum, but if the plaintiff also carries on business where the cause of action arises, the suit must be filed there. On the facts, the earlier view that the suit was not maintainable merely because the plaintiff did not carry on business within the jurisdiction was incorrect.

Conclusion: The suit was maintainable before the Court and the order rejecting the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the plaint rejection was set aside, and the suit was restored for trial before the learned Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides an additional forum for suing, to be applied purposively along with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and territorial jurisdiction depends on the statutory forum and the pleaded cause of action.

---