- (1.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff is to restrain the defendant by an order of perpetual injunction from infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work green label stand back pouch, by use of golden label stand back pouch, or any other pouch similar to plaintiff's green label stand pack pouch; for a perpetual order of injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its partners/proprietor, servants, agents distributors, stockists or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff by use of golden label stand pack pouch or any other pouch similar to plaintiffs green label stand park pouch of in any other manner whatsoever; and for consequential reliefs.
(2.) THE suit is filed under Sec. 62 of the Copyright Act. Before instituting the suit, the plaintiff also filed an application tor leave permitting it to institute the suit before this Court on 21. 12. 1992. That application was allowed. Pursuant to the same, the suit was filed. THEreafter, after getting notice, the defendant has tiled this application to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiff. . For getting leave of the court, it was averred by the plaintiff that the respondent (defendant) is manufacturing and selling coffee packed in golden label stand pack pouches, that the respondent's golden label stand pack pouches are an imitation of the plaintiffs artistic work green label stand pack pouch in colour scheme, get up and lay out, that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the artistic work green label stand pack pouch under Sec. 61 (2) of the Copyright Act. According to the plaintiff, the respondent/defendant's activities give rise to cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Court, and as the respondent is located at Ongole. Andhra Pradesh, k has become necessary to obtain leave of this Court to sue the defendant before this Court. It is further averred in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavIt filed in support of the application for leave, that the cause of action arose at Madras wIthin the jurisdiction of this court. The appellant who is the owner of the copyright in the artistic work green label stand pack pouch has one made'branch office at No. 81 Dr. Rangachari Road. Mylapore. . Madras and Regional Accounts office at No. 611/612. Mount Load. Madras, is is also stated that the applicant's Madras Offices account for approximately 35% of All India safes turnover of the applicant. The applicant's Madras Branch Office is involved in the sale marketing of coffee, tea and spices in the State of Tamil nadu. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala and the Union TerrItory of pondicherry. It is on these allegations, leave was sought for from this Court. In the plaint, it is stated in paragraph 18 that the cause of action in respect of copyright infringement has arisen at Madras within the meaning of Sec. 61 (2) of the Copyright Act, and, Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in this Court which has got the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In the application to revoke the leave (Application no. 814 of 1993 it is stated that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant is carrying on business in ongolc District of Andhra Pradesh and that the defendant has no branch office outside Andhra Pradesh within the jurisdiction of this Court. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has offices all over India and has a strong marketing force and that the plaintiff has invoked Sec. 62 of the Copyright Act only with a view of harass the defendant, knowing fully well that the defendant from ongole, does not possess the infrastructure or resources to defend itself in this Court. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is abusing the process of law and has invoked Sec. 62 of the Copyright Act in order to stifle competition by unfair and unethical means The defendant would say that the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant, and that the suit ought to have been filed before the District Court. Ongolc, where the defendant would be better equipped- to defend itself. For these reasons, the defendant has prayed for revocation of the permission already granted to the plaintiff.
(3.) SEC. 62 of the Copyright Act deals with jurisdiction of courts or matters arising under thai Chapter. Chapter 12 deals with civil remedies. There are two subsections to SEC. 62. Sub-sec. (1) says that the suit in respect o ( the infringement conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district Court having jurisdiction. Sub-sec. (2) is relevant for the purpose of this case, it says that'notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, or any other law for the time being in force, a "district Court having jurisdiction'shall include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of instituting of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or. where there arc more than one such person, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain'. The importance of giving a separate definition is also relevant for the purpose of this case. It is an amendment. The amendment itself was necessitated in view of the difficulties of owners of copyrights in instituting suits in various courts. The reason for the amendment is stated thus: ". . . The Committee fee's that the provisions of the original sub-clause (2) would virtually make registration of copyright compulsory and would be an undue restriction on the owner of the copyright to exercise his rights In the opinion of the committee many authors are deterred from instituting infringement proceedings because the court in which such proceedings are to be instituted is situated at a considerable distance from the place of their ordinary residence. The committee feels that this impediment should be removed and the new sub-clause (2) accordingly provides that infringement proceedings may be instituted in District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the person instituting the proceedings ordinarily resides, carries on business, etc. " Sec. 2 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code defines "district" and "district Court'. While defining the same, it is stated'district" means the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil court of original jurisdiction (hereinafter called a "district Court") and includes the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of a High Court. ;