- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sudesh Bansal
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Revision allowed and the plaint directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation to a court having territorial jurisdiction. The suit was founded on passing off rather than infringement, neither the trade name nor the artistic work being registered in the plaintiff's name, so the plaintiff could not invoke section 134(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act or section 62 of the Copyright Act to sue where it carried on business. Jurisdiction was therefore governed by section 134(c) read with section 20 CPC, and the defendant resided and carried on business at Rajkot. The averments of a cause of action arising at Jaipur were bald and casual, and the Court described them as illusionary and made simply to invoke that forum. The trial court had wrongly assumed the plaintiff held a registration and had wrongly deferred the question to the evidence stage.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.