Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, delivered an oral judgment on 11 August 2025 directing the return of a plaint filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that the plaint could not be entertained for want of territorial jurisdiction. It was recorded that the plaintiff did not reside or carry on business within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, nor had any part of the cause of action arisen there. Consequently, the plaint was ordered to be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for presentation before the court of competent jurisdiction. The interim application filed by the defendants seeking return of the plaint was allowed, and the proceedings, including the interim application, leave petition, and the commercial intellectual property suit, were disposed of without an order as to costs.

The matter originated from a suit instituted by the plaintiff for infringement of its registered trademark "ARCEE" and for passing off. The plaintiff, a partnership firm engaged in the business of sale of electronic goods, claimed ownership of the registered mark "ARCEE." The firm was established in 1986 at Vashi, Navi Mumbai, initially under the management of the founder. Over the years, it expanded its operations across Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. The plaintiff claimed to operate 23 showrooms, one head office, and one warehouse. Details of turnover and growth were placed on record. On 18 August 2021, the firm’s name was changed to M/s. Arcee International.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Govt Press Release Not “Change in Law” Under PPA | FTP Para 8.3 Benefits Inapplicable to Thermal Power Projects

The plaintiff contended that the defendants opened a showroom under the name "ARCEEIKA," allegedly adopting similar colours, font, and style to misappropriate its goodwill and business model. According to the plaintiff, the defendants commenced operations under the impugned name in August 2024 and engaged in the sale of electronic goods from their showrooms. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ conduct constituted infringement of its registered trademark and amounted to passing off.

The defendants opposed the proceedings and filed Interim Application (L) No. 32557 of 2024, invoking Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant No. 2 contended that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, as neither the plaintiff carried on business within its jurisdiction nor had any cause of action arisen there. The defendants sought return of the plaint on this ground.

The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the court had jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was argued that part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of the court as the plaintiff carried on business in Mumbai city and supplied electronic goods to customers located therein. It was further submitted that the defendants had also delivered goods to customers in Mumbai. In support, the plaintiff relied upon invoices and challans, including one dated 2 September 2022 issued by the defendants to a customer in Chembur.

The defendants, through their counsel, submitted that the plaint was silent on the issue of jurisdiction. It was argued that the plaintiff had not pleaded that it carried on business in Mumbai city or that any part of the cause of action had arisen there. The defendants contended that the plaintiff’s reliance on invoices was misplaced, as the invoices only indicated delivery addresses but did not prove that sales took place within Mumbai city.

Reliance was placed by the defendants on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Manugraph India Limited v. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5334), which held that suits cannot be filed in a jurisdiction where neither the plaintiff carries on business nor the cause of action arises.

The court noted that the plaintiff’s address in the cause title was situated in Navi Mumbai. The plaint consistently stated that all showrooms, the head office, and warehouse were located only in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. No averment was made in the plaint regarding a showroom or business activity in Mumbai city. The plaintiff’s attempt to establish jurisdiction through oral arguments and supporting invoices was scrutinized by the court.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne recorded that “throughout the body of the Plaint, there is total absence of even a single averment that Plaintiff has any showroom in Mumbai city or has sold any of its goods in Mumbai city.” It was further observed that “as a matter of fact, Plaint is completely silent on the aspect of jurisdiction as no averments are made to demonstrate as to how the Suit is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.”

The court considered Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and held that jurisdiction under the provision is conferred on the district court within whose jurisdiction the plaintiff resides or carries on business. The judgment recorded: “Jurisdiction is conferred under Section 134(2) only on the Court within whose jurisdiction the Plaintiff resides or carries on business. If the averments made in the Plaint are considered in the light of provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, it is clear that Plaintiff has clearly admitted that it carries on business in Navi Mumbai City and Raigad District.”

The invoices relied upon by the plaintiff were examined. Referring to an invoice indicating purchase at the plaintiff’s showroom in Panvel with delivery in Vile Parle, the court stated: “Here the business of Plaintiff is of sale of goods and not of delivery. Therefore, the place at which the sale has occurred would determine Plaintiff’s place of business. Mere delivery of goods at customer’s residence would not mean that the Plaintiff carries on business at the place of residence of the customer.”

Similarly, the court noted that another invoice showed sales from Navi Mumbai branches without evidence of a showroom in Mumbai city. It held: “Thus, Plaintiff neither resides nor carries on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.”

On the argument that part of the cause of action had arisen within Mumbai city, the court considered Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It recorded that “Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act does not confer jurisdiction on the principle of accrual of cause of action. It provides for filing of Suit only at one place i.e. the place where the Plaintiff resides or carries on business.” However, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161, the court held that provisions of Section 20 of the Code continue to apply and that a suit can also be filed where the cause of action arises.

Despite this, the court found no pleading or evidence showing that any cause of action had arisen in Mumbai city. Referring to the invoices relied upon by the plaintiff, the court observed: “The customer has approached the showroom of Defendant No.1 located at Navi Mumbai and has purchased a washing machine. Therefore, said invoice cannot be used for the purpose of demonstrating that Defendants have committed any infringing or passing off act within the territorial limits of this Court.”

Also Read: “Taking Note of the Severity of the Offences, the Convict Deserves Life Imprisonment for Rest of His Life”: Orissa High Court Converts Death Penalty into Life Term After Confirming Convictions

The judgment concluded that neither Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act nor Section 20 of the Code supported the plaintiff’s claim to jurisdiction.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne directed that “The Plaint in the Suit is returned to the Plaintiff under provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code for being presented in the Court having jurisdiction.” The court further directed that “Interim Application (L) No.32557 of 2024 is accordingly allowed.” The order also recorded that “there shall be no order as to costs.” Finally, it was directed that “With the above directions, Interim Application, Leave Petition as well as the Suit are disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Subhradeep Banerjee i/b. Mr. Navin P. Sachanandani

For the Defendants: Mr. Hiren Kamod with Mr. Rakesh Sawant, Mr. Prem Khullar, Ms. Shamiyana H., and Mr. Rahul Patil i/b. M/s. Arhat Legal

Case Title: M/s. ARCEE Electronics v. M/s. ARCEEIKA and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13596

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit (L) No.19290 of 2024 with connected applications

Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne