Tanushree Bakhshi, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
1. INTRODUCTION
The issue of jurisdiction in a case of trademark infringement has been the subject of several judicial pronouncements. Recently, the Delhi High Court Bench ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs wishing to institute a suit in Delhi when the defendants had their registered office in Ahmedabad, and had been operating in other cities of Gujarat, on the ground that the Plaintiff was well entitled to file the suit where the cause of action arose under Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and dismissed the defendants’ allegation that the plaintiffs had deliberately chosen to file the present proceedings before the Court to cause hardship and inconvenience to defendants.1
However, the jurisprudence on this point has not always been clear-cut. Taking note that many a times the defendants are unnecessarily dragged to far-off places by the plaintiffs, where they might encounter severe hardship and be deprived of their legal remedies, the Courts have taken a sympathetic stance towards the former, and have interpreted the provisions in a manner that suppresses the mischief, and promotes the remedy. One such judgement is the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Versus Sanjay Dalia and Another2 (hereinafter referred to as “IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia”), wherein the Court took guidance from Purposive Construction: Mischief Rule of Interpretation and gave its ruling in light of the same.
