Jurisdiction is a primarily a subject matter covered under the Civil procedure Code, 1908. The issue however, came up for deliberation in Lark Laboratories Ltd vs Nabros Pharma Pvt Ltd 2010 (42) PTC 675 (Guj). Nabros Pharma Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Ahmedabad, is engaged in the manufacturing, marketing, selling and exporting of medical and pharmaceutical products under the trademark 'Dolaren ', with a copyright in its artistic work. The cause of action arose in the instant case when it came to their knowledge, that the company named Lark Laboratories had started using the trademark 'Bolaren' along with the copyrighted artwork in its labels. The package of Bolaren is literally identical and deceptively similar to Nabros Pharma's registered trademark 'Dolaren '.
Nabros Pharma filed a suit along with interim application in the district court of Ahmedabad under section 134 of Trademarks Act, 1999 in order to restrain the other party to carry on its trade and business under the similar trademark and the copyright in the artwork. It was observed by the learned chamber judge that offices of both the companies are in India and that they both are exporting their products outside India. However, Nabros Pharma had acquired registration in various countries like India, Russia, and Ukraine along with the copyright in the artwork of its label on the packages in India as well as in various countries. In his view, the matter was decided in favour of Nabros Pharma company.
Being aggrieved of this order Lark laboratories filed a suit in Gujarat High court (prior to this, it has also filed the suit against the Nabros Pharma company in district court of Delhi, on the same grounds on which Nabros Pharma filed a suit against it in Civil court of Ahmedabad) questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the district court of learned chamber judge. Lark laboratories submitted that the office of Lark Laboratories is situated in Delhi and both the parties to the suit are selling their products in countries like Russia and the trademark of Nabros Pharma company 'Dolaren' has been removed from the register of the trademark by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of Ahmedabad, therefore the learned chamber judge has committed error in assuming jurisdiction and has materially erred in granting injunction and allowing Notice of motion.
The counsel for Nabros Pharma Company relying on the cases of Smt. Adhikari v. Rabindra Nath Adhikari, AIR 1998 CAL 273 and Sandeep Polymers (P) Ltd. V. Bajaj Auto Ltd. And Ors., 2007 (7) SCC 148, submitted that in cases where some cause of action united in the plaint are not triable by the court for the want of jurisdiction then in such cases, the court can call upon the plaintiff to amend his plaint by striking out all such causes of action as are beyond its jurisdiction and then proceed with the plaint in respect of remaining causes of action which are within its jurisdiction. Nabros Pharma also submitted that till such date, no injunction was granted by the district court of Delhi in the suit filed by the Lark Laboratories for infringement, and regarding the order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Ahmedabad, to remove the trademark 'Dolaren' from the register of trademark was being stayed by the civil court of Ahmedabad, hence there is deliberate attempt of Lark Laboratories to misguide the court. The court in its judgment held that that for the reasons stated above there is no substance in the appeal, and hence it got dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
