Published Paper Details:

Jurisdiction is the gateway for any grievance to enter the portals of the dispute settlement and be transformed into litigation. The common understanding in the absence of any precise definition prescribes jurisdiction to be the authority or competence of any court to entertain the matter placed before it. Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 134 of the Trademark Act, 1999 and Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are applicable for adjudicating Intellectual Property Rights violations. Section 20 CPC lays down the general rule of territorial jurisdiction. The first part, basing jurisdiction on the defendant's residence, is prompted by the rationale that the defendant, not being the person who instituted the suit, should not be put to undue hardship in defending such a suit when the suit may not be maintainable at all and the second part, basing jurisdiction on cause of action. Section 62 of the Copyright Act and the identical Section 134(2) of the Trade Mark Act carve out an exception to the general rules of jurisdiction contained in CPC. Section 62 and Section 134 give an option to the plaintiff to file a suit in a court under whose jurisdiction the plaintiff himself is based, irrespective of where the defendant is based or where the cause of action has arisen. Consequently, for violations of the Copyright Act and the Trade Mark Act, in addition to the jurisdictional grounds available under CPC, an additional ground has been provided. A very pertinent issue of the jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate suits for infringement of trademarks or copyright came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of IPRS vs. Sanjay Dalia and Anr. In which the Court interpreted the provisions of section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to determine the jurisdiction of the courts to entertain infringement suits/ proceedings. Consequently, the jurisdictional challenges in today's age of fast communication, have invited various viewpoints for their resolution including significant changes in the existing legal framework. Internet being one of the most radical changes in the field of information technology demands much more than a mere adjustment in the law governing it. One cannot overlook the requirement of appropriate changes in the law. Failing in doing so would give way to new complex legal issues. Cause of action as a basis for jurisdiction in cases of intellectual property violations via internet was discussed in detail in Banyan Tree Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Murali Krishna Reddy.