Redefining the jurisdiction clause under copyright and trade mark laws in India

Abstract

This article comes out of the context of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in Paragon Rubber Industries v Pragathi Rubber Mills concerning whether amendment should be allowed in cases of composite suits filed by the plaintiffs by camouflaging the relief of trade mark infringement taking recourse to the jurisdiction clause under the Copyright Act. This peculiar situation arose in the background of the amendment of the Trade Marks Act in 2003. It affects trade mark infringement cases filed under the Trade Marks Act prior to the amendment. The Indian Copyright Act is a unique piece of legislation giving jurisdiction to the courts at the place where the plaintiff resides. The jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act of India as amended also falls in line with the Copyright Act. This additional forum, though welcomed by plaintiffs, is an undue burden on the defendant who may be harassed by filing infringement action at the place of the plaintiff's residence. The clauses in the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act as amended are in stark contrast to other legislation, as well as to parallel legislation in other countries. This article is an attempt to redefine jurisdiction so that jurisdiction is vested with the courts at the place where the harm is done, so as not to prejudice either party.