Site navigation

A, an individual who actually and voluntarily resides in Delhi and has no office or business in Mumbai, sues B for infringement of A’s registered trade mark. B resides in Mumbai and the infringing…

Question and options

A, an individual who actually and voluntarily resides in Delhi and has no office or business in Mumbai, sues B for infringement of A’s registered trade mark. B resides in Mumbai and the infringing use occurs there. Does section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provide a territorially competent District Court in Delhi?

  1. Yes; Delhi is an additional statutory forum on these facts.

  2. No; only B’s residence can supply territorial jurisdiction.

  3. Yes, but only if B grants consent to that forum.

  4. No; an infringement suit can be filed only where the mark was registered.

Answer and explanation

Correct answer: A - Yes; Delhi is an additional statutory forum on these facts.

For registered-mark infringement, section 134(2) supplies an additional District Court forum where the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business or personally works for gain. The provision must be read with the restriction explained in Sanjay Dalia against dragging litigation away from a place where the plaintiff has business and the cause of action arises.

Practice for these exams

Related question papers

Related exam syllabi

More solved explanations in Trade Marks Act, 1999