Suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with suit for infringement, etc., to be instituted before District Court. No suit-- (a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; The Act came into force on 15 Sep 2003.
(1) No suit--
(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or
(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or
(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark, whether registered or unregistered,
shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), a "District Court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (2), "person" includes the registered proprietor and the registered user.
Section 134, The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act 47 of 1999).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Advance Magazine Publishers INC vs Just Lifestyle Pvt. LTD
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a plaintiff resides or carries on business at a place where the cause of action has wholly or partly arisen, or where the plaintiff or any of them ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, the suit can be filed at such place under Sections 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. However, where the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action both arise at the same location, the plaintiff cannot invoke Sections 62(2) or 134(2) to file suit at a different place, including distant branch offices where no cause of action has arisen. The non-obstante clause in these provisions does not oust the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure but merely provides an additional forum. The interpretation must be subject to the restriction that if cause of action has arisen wholly or in part at the plaintiff's principal place of business, suit must be filed at that place and not at subordinate offices at far-flung locations. This interpretation prevents abuse of the provisions and counter-mischief to defendants while still ensuring the remedy intended for rights-holders - avoiding deterrence due to distance from courts.
On this section: Section 134(2) mirrors Section 62(2) and provides district court jurisdiction where person instituting suit resides or carries on business. Court held same interpretation applies - additional forum subject to Section 20 CPC principles, and does not apply to passing off claims under 134(1)(c).
-
Indian Performing Rights Society LTD vs Sanjay Dalia
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a plaintiff (including corporations) has its principal office or carries on main business at a particular location AND the cause of action wholly or in part arises at that same location, the plaintiff must file suit at that location and cannot file suit at a distant subordinate office location merely because it carries on some business there through a branch office. The provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provide additional forums for filing suits where plaintiff resides or carries on business, but these provisions do not permit suit filing at locations where cause of action has not arisen. The 'notwithstanding' clauses in these sections modify, but do not entirely eliminate, the applicability of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When plaintiff has a choice of forum where cause of action has arisen, that choice cannot be circumvented by invoking distant branch office presence. The interpretation must balance plaintiff's convenience (original legislative intent) with prevention of harassment to defendants (counter mischief), adopting the construction that suppresses the mischief and prevents counter-mischief.
On this section: Section 134(2) provides similar jurisdiction expansion as Copyright Act Section 62(2) for trademark infringement suits. However, the Court held that this provision applies only to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 134(1), not to clause (c) regarding passing off actions. Jurisdiction expansion through 'additional forum' language must be read subject to the restriction that if cause of action has arisen where plaintiff's principal office is located, suit must be filed there, not at distant branch offices.
-
Dav(mat) Higher Sec. School Etc. Etc vs Dav College Managing Committee
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The paramount consideration for the exercise of power to transfer suits under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code is whether the ends of justice demand such transfer. While balance of convenience and inconvenience of parties, witnesses, and evidence may be relevant considerations, they are not sufficient in themselves. The Court must determine whether the trial in the chosen forum will result in denial of justice. Mere inconvenience to defendants due to distance, language, or age of representatives, without showing that fair trial would be denied, is insufficient ground for transfer, especially when allowing such transfer would defeat the legislative purpose of jurisdictional provisions in substantive law (such as Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act) and would open floodgates for similar transfer petitions by similarly situated defendants across the country.
On this section: Provides jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits. Court noted that suits under this section confer specific jurisdiction with respect to registered trademarks and that allowing transfers could defeat the purpose of this jurisdictional provision.
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Deed of Assignment transferring intellectual property rights (specifically, 50% ownership of a trade mark) 'absolutely and forever' cannot be unilaterally revoked by the assignor upon termination of the underlying business agreement. A negative covenant in such a Deed (prohibiting use or registration of the trade mark except through the assignee) is enforceable through injunction under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and does not violate Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, because it restrains use of specific intellectual property, not the carrying on of trade or business. An interim order under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, maintaining status quo pending arbitration is justified and within the jurisdiction of the District Court to protect the rights of both parties.
On this section: Sections under which the Respondent filed the suit before the District Judge seeking injunction to restrain the Appellant from using the trade mark 'Naturoma Herbal'. These sections provide remedies for infringement of registered trade marks.
-
Suresh Dhanuka vs Sunita Mohapatra
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deed of assignment transfers property (including intellectual property such as trademark) absolutely and forever, with clear conditions stipulating that neither party can use or register the mark independently after termination of the joint venture, the assignor cannot unilaterally revoke such assignment. The enforcement of negative covenants contained in such deeds through injunctions is permissible under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, provided the covenant is not merely a restraint on trade under Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but rather a restriction on use of specific property. In such circumstances, an interim order restraining the assignor from using the trademark pending arbitration is justified to maintain status quo and protect both parties' rights, and such order should not be interfered with unless it is clearly arbitrary or unjust. The adequacy of money compensation must be assessed in light of the proprietary nature of the interest acquired; where a party has acquired a substantial proprietary right in valuable intellectual property with associated goodwill through a clear deed, injunctive relief is the appropriate remedy, not monetary compensation alone.
On this section: These sections were cited by Respondent for obtaining injunction against unauthorized use of trademark; Court examined the scope and limits of such relief
-
Lakhan Lal Shyam Kumar v. Ram Prasad Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DATE VERIFIED Final Order 2012-05-24 (order-1.pdf): Territorial jurisdiction under Trade Marks Act s.134 / CPC s.20 decided as a pure question of law on plaint averments; bald assertions of carrying on business / cause of action in Delhi without material nexus fail — suit for TM/copyright infringement dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction (Dhodha House line).
On this section: s.134 — district-court TM suit venue requires real carrying-on-business / cause-of-action nexus; hollow plaint averments do not confer jurisdiction.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 134
What have the courts held on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act?
Advance Magazine Publishers INC vs Just Lifestyle Pvt. LTD (01 Jul 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 134(2) mirrors Section 62(2) and provides district court jurisdiction where person instituting suit resides or carries on business. Court held same interpretation applies - additional forum subject to Section 20 CPC principles, and does not apply to passing off claims under 134(1)(c). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2010 to 2015.
How do I find court cases under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: Trade Marks Act 134, section 134 Trade Marks Act, section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Advance Magazine Publishers INC vs Just Lifestyle Pvt. LTD (01 Jul 2015).
What should I read with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it.
When did Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act come into force?
Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, cited as Trade Marks Act 134, came into force on 15 Sep 2003, having been enacted on 30 Dec 1999. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions and interpretation1911 words
- 157. Power to make rules1216 words
- 11. Relative grounds for refusal of registration985 words
- 47. Removal from register and imposition of limitations on ground of non-use716 words
- 30. Limits on effect of registered trade mark657 words
- 29. Infringement of registered trade marks651 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.