{"id":244091,"date":"2006-01-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-01-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006"},"modified":"2018-06-16T00:37:07","modified_gmt":"2018-06-15T19:07:07","slug":"international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","title":{"rendered":"International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2006 (2) BomCR 18, (2006) 108 BOMLR 389, 2006 (4) MhLj 527, 2006 (33) PTC 93 Bom<\/div>\n
Author: S Kamdar<\/div>\n
Bench: S Kamdar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
S.U. Kamdar, J.<\/p>\n
Page 392<\/p>\n
1. By an order dated 16.10.2002 this court  has formulated a preliminary issue of  jurisdiction under section 9A of the CPC as  amended for the State of Maharashtra. The issue  framed is as under :  Does the plaintiff prove that  this court has jurisdiction to  try the present suit<\/p>\n
2. After framing the issue of jurisdiction  by an order dated 23.6.2005 this court directed  that the evidence be recorded on the issue of  jurisdiction and a Commissioner was appointed to  record the oral evidence of both sides.  Accordingly, Mr. Vatsal Shah advocate was  appointed as Commissioner. The Commissioner has  concluded the evidence and has filed his report.  The same is taken on record in accordance with  the order passed by this court on 23.6.2005.  Before dealing with the motion on merits I shall  deal with the issue of jurisdiction and  accordingly I have heard the parties on the issue  of jurisdiction. Some of the material facts of  the present case are as under :\n<\/p>\n
3. The present suit is filed by a club known  as ‘Lions Club International’ against the  defendant who are claiming themselves to be a  National Association of Indian Lions’. By the  present suit the plaintiffs are seeking that the defendant should be restrained by an order and  perpetual injunction from in any manner using the  word ‘LION’ or ‘LEOS’ or any other registered  trade mark or service mark or any other word or  mark identical with or deceptively similar  thereto with that of the name of the plaintiff.  In prayer (b) of the plaint an injunction is  sought from restraining the defendant from  carrying out their activities as a LIONS Club or  any other associated club. In prayer (c) an  injunction is sought on the basis of registered  trade mark. In prayer (d) injunction is sought  against using any domain name with the use of the  words ‘LIONS’ therein. By prayer (e) copy right  infringement is also sought in respect original  artistic work of the word ‘LION’ with the emblem  as set out in Exhibit-M to the plaint. Thus the  suit is filed both for an infringement of trade  mark as well as for passing off as well as for  the purpose of passing off a copy right and  infringing the rights of the plaintiff in the  said art work associated with the words ‘LIONS’  and ‘LEOS’<\/p>\n
4. An application is also filed under clause  14 of the Letters Patent of this court for  joinder of two distinct cause of action of  passing off as well as of breach of copy rights.  Leave under Clause 14 has not been yet granted by  this court because of raising of issue of  jurisdiction by the defendant and framing of the  same as a preliminary issue under section 9A of  the CPC as amended for the State of Maharashtra.\n<\/p>\n
5. Learned counsel for the defendant who has  raised the issue of jurisdiction has inter-alia  contended that this court has no jurisdiction  firstly because the defendants are neither  residents nor carrying on any business within the  territorial jurisdiction of this court and that  the association of the defendants i.e. National  Society of Indian Lions is registered under the  Rajasthan Societies Act, 1958 and its registered  office at 1,502, Ramble Road, Ajmer 305 001,  Rajasthan, India. It has been contended that the  area of Page 393 operation of the defendant no.5 is restricted only in the city of Rajasthan and not  outside the said state. It has been further  contended that the Memorandum of Association and  Articles of Association of the defendant no.5  inter-alia stipulates that the area of operation  of the defendant no.5 is only in the state of  Rajasthan and not outside thereto. It has also  been contended that the other defendants to the  suit some of whom are the members of the  defendant no.5 association also have their  residence in Ajmer i.e. within the State of  Rajasthan and they are neither residing nor  carrying on any business within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court. It has been thus  contended that this court has no jurisdiction to  entertain and try the present suit. It has been  further contended that in the light of the fact  that the entire activity of the defendant no.5 is  restricted in the state of Rajasthan and that the  Articles of Association and Memorandum of  Association or constitution of the 5th defendant  Association being providing for activities only  within the state of Rajasthan no part of cause of action has arisen in Mumbai and therefore this  court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try  the present suit. It has been further contended  that none of the goods of the defendant no.5  which are having Lion as the name or emblem  thereof on T-Shirts or other articles is either  sold or distributed or made available in the city  of Mumbai and therefore also there is no question  of any passing off of any goods within the  territorial jurisdiction of this court and  therefore this court has no jurisdiction to  entertain and try the present suit. In support  of the aforesaid contention the learned counsel  appearing for the defendants has also drawn my  attention to the various part of evidence of the  parties before me. He has contended that the  only evidence which has been produced by the  plaintiff to show that this court has  jurisdiction in the course of examination in  chief of P.W.No.1 is found in para 31, 32 and 35  thereof. He has contended that this evidence of  P.W. no.1 itself indicates that this court has  no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. He contended that from deposition of P.W.no.1  itself it is established that the alleged  infringement or passing off or breach of copy  rights has taken place only in Ajmer and not  within the territorial jurisdiction of this court  in Mumbai. He contends that in para 31 of the  evidence it has been stated that the plaintiff  has obtained a pamphlet in Hindi from Ajmer office  of the defendant. In para=32 he has stated that  the defendants address given is also of Ajmer.  In para-35 he has pointed out that the defendant  no.1 is a joint chairman of the District Club at  Ajmer and in para-36 once again it has been  deposed that originally the said club has started  only in Ajmer and not outside. He has further  pointed out that even in para-35 of the cross  examination he has deposed that the plaintiffs  have a club affiliated to them in Rajasthan but  he does not know whether the defendant have any  branch in Mumbai. He has further deposed that he  does not known whether the defendants have any  activity in Mumbai. In para-16 of the  cross-examination he has positively deposed saying that the defendant no.5 is a registered  society and it is registered in Ajmer and  Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Societies Act,  1958. Further he has deposed that he is not  aware of the bye-laws of the defendant no.5 or  the constitution of the defendant no.5.  Similarly he has relied upon the evidence of the  witness of the defendant being D.W. no.1  particularly para-4 to 8 of his  examination-in-chief. In para-4 to 8 of his  examination-in- Page 394 chief he has given details that  the defendant no.5 is a society registered under  the Rajasthan Registration Society Act, 1999.  The said society is registered on 18.2.2000 and  he has produced the certificate of registration.  D.W.No.1 has also produced the constitution of  defendant no.5 and English translation thereof.  He has also produced the bye-laws. In para-8 of  his cross-examination he has deposed that the  defendant no.5 and its members are providing only  social service to the people residing in the  State of Rajasthan and are not carrying any  manufacturing and or any business or distribution activities at all. He has further deposed that  he has neither carried out any trade or sold  either in Ajmer or in Rajasthan or in Mumbai any  of the articles or things with the aforesaid name  of Lion or Leos or any emblem thereof. In so far  as the web-site is concerned, D.W. no.1 has  deposed that the defendant no.5 society never had  its own website or never published its pamphlet  showing the emblem. Relying upon the aforesaid  evidence the learned counsel for the defendant  has vehemently contended that the suit is not  maintainable in this court as this court has no  territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the  present suit. He has further contended that no  leave under clause-14 can be granted to the  plaintiffs for entertaining the present suit. He  thus invited me to dismiss the suit for want of  jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
6. Learned counsel for the defendant  thereafter contended that admittedly this court  has no jurisdiction for passing off action  because none of the goods belonging to the defendant with the emblem mark or with the  picture of Lion is sold or distributed within the  territorial jurisdiction of this court and  therefore the passing off of copy rights filed by  the plaintiff by way of the present suit is not  maintainable. He has further contended that even  a suit for breach of copy rights is not  maintainable because according to him in  deposition of cross-examination of P.W.No.1, P.W.  No.1 has deposed as under :\n<\/p>\n
 It is true that the Emblem on  page 10 of the plaint is used by the  plaintiffs since 1921. To the best of my  knowledge the plaintiffs are claiming  copyright of the said emblem. The  plaintiffs do not claim copyright in  respect of any other emblem other than  the emblem shown on page 10 of the  plaint.\n<\/p>\n
7. He has contended that thus by virtue of  the said deposition it has been established that  the plaintiff had registered their mark for copy  right in 1921. He has contended that under  section 29 of the Copy Right Act, 1957  registration in cases of an international organisation to which the provisions of Section  41 apply can subsist only for a period of 60  years from the beginning of the calendar year  next following the year in which the work is  first published. It is contended by the learned  counsel for the defendant that in view of the  deposition in para 19 of the P.W. no.1 it is  clear that the copy right was registered in 1921.  The next calendar year is 1922 and therefore  according to him in 1982 the said copy right  registration has lapsed and thus the suit on the  basis of infringement or breach of copy rights or  a passing off a design of the plaintiff inrespect  of copy right cannot at all subsist and thus for  the purpose of clause 14 of the Letters Patent  according to the learned counsel for defendant  no.5 a suit inrespect of passing off of the copy  right design must be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has on  the other hand contended that this court must  grant leave under Clause 14 of the Letters  Patent. He has Page 395 contended that in Clause 14 a joinder of cause of action for passing off trade  mark or copy right is permissible. He has  further contended that even in respect of any one  of the causes of action if that cause of action  has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of  this court than by virtue of grant of leave under  Clause 14 this court can entertain the whole suit  even inrespect of that part of cause of action  which did not arise within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court. It has been  contended that in the present case on admitted  facts a cause of action or passing off copy  rights does arise within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court. Inrespect of the  aforesaid contention the learned counsel has  relied upon the deposition of P.W.No.2. P.W.No.2  has deposed that he sought to access the website  from Bombay and infact he sent an e-mail  requesting that he be enrolled as a member of the  defendant no.5 club. He has further pointed out  in his deposition that the in reply to his email  message he received a message and was asked to  access the website from where he could get the admission form for the purpose of enrollment.  This evidence of P.W.no.2 on behalf of the  plaintiff itself in para 2 to 5 of his evidence  has almost gone unchallenged. Though he is cross  examined by the defendant nothing much has been  achieved except the question no.18 in which he  was asked how does he say that the people from  Bombay can apply for membership to which he has  replied that people from Bombay can apply by  accessing the website www.indian  lions.org.bizli.com. Apart from that one  question no cross examination has been conducted.  Not only that in his evidence the P.W.NO.  specifically mentioned that he had sent an email  to defendant no.3. There is no dispute that  defendant no.3 is a member of the defendant no.5  association. He has also deposed that defendant  no.3 asked him to access the said website and  become a member. Inrespect of the aforesaid the  defendants have not lead the evidence of the  defendant no.3 because he did not step in the  witness box. It was necessary to examine him in  the light of the evidence of P.W. no.2. Thus according to the plaintiff it has been  established that by and through the website  www.indianlions.org the defendants are committing  breach of the design and logo of the plaintiff as  this design and logo can be accessed even in  Mumbai. Further more it has been contended that  through website the defendant no.5 is carrying on  its activities in Mumbai by enrolling the members  within the city of Mumbai. He has further  produced in the course of the evidence the  visiting card of one of the persons namely Mr.  T.G. Gala who is using the LION emblem with the  word ‘Indian Lions’ and is residing in Bombay.  It his case that thus the defendants are infact  carrying on activities in city of Mumbai. In so  far as the said visiting card is concerned the  objection has been raised that the visiting card  is not proved in the course of his evidence  because it was not relied upon in affidavit of  documents. Apart therefrom there is no other  challenge to the said visiting card. Learned  counsel for the plaintiffs thus states that he is  able to establish that this court has jurisdiction inrespect of the cause of action for  passing off of copy right and once it is so then  the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the present  suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has  thereafter relied upon the provisions of section  62 of the Copy Right Act in which it is  inter-alia mentioned that any proceedings can be  instituted under the Act inrespect of the  infringement of copy right in the district court  Page 396 having jurisdiction. Under sub-section 2 of  section 62 it has been explained that the word  ‘district court’ means within the local limits of  whose jurisdiction at the time of institution of  suit or other proceedings the person instituting  the suit or other proceedings or where there are  more than one persons and any one of them  actually or voluntarily resides or carries on  business or personally works for gain. It has  been contended by the learned counsel for the  plaintiff that in the present case under  sub-section 2 the plaintiffs are having their  office in Bombay and that their activities are  carried out in Mumbai and therefore under section 62(2) they are entitled to maintain the suit in  this court because it is the plaintiffs who have  instituted the suit and that they carried out the  business for gain in Mumbai. It is therefore  contended that the plaintiffs are carrying out  business in Bombay and therefore they can  maintain the suit on infringement and or passing  off of copy right in Bombay. It has been  contended that once the case of the plaintiffs  for infringement and passing off of copy rights  of the design falls within the city of Bombay  then this court has jurisdiction to entertain and  try the present suit and by virtue of clause 14  of the Letters Patent they are entitled to join  the cause of action even inrespect of passing off  of the trade mark and or infringement thereof in  this court. Learned counsel for the plaintiff  has relied upon the decision of the single judge  of this court in the case of Burroughs Welcome  (India) Ltd v. G.K. Sharma and King Scientific  Research Centre reported in 1990(1) PLR 60  particularly para-3 and 5 thereof which reads as  under :\n<\/p>\n
3. The motion was called out for  hearing before me on March 9,1989 and  Shri Desai, learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the defendants, raised a  preliminary objection to the  maintainability of the suit in this court  on the ground that this court has no  jurisdiction to entertain and grant the  relief. Shri Desai contended that the  defendants, on the date of the filing of  the suit, did not carry on any business  within the jurisdiction of this court.  Shri Desai claimed that though initially  the defendants had maintained an office  at Kandivali in bombay for the purpose of  facilitating purchase of raw materials,  the same was closed down in March or  April 1988 and thereafter the defendants  are carrying on business only at Kota in  Rajasthan, Shri Mehta, learned counsel  appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs, on  the other hand, urged that the cartons  used by the defendants even now show that  the business was carried out at  Kandivali, Bombay. The hearing of the  motion was postponed to ascertain whether  in fact the defendants are even now  having office at Kandivali. There is no  dispute that in respect of cause of  action arising out of the infringement of  copy right, this court has jurisdiction  under Section 62 of the Copy Right Act.  The plaintiffs complaining of violation  of copyright can institute suit at the  place where the plaintiffs are residing  or carrying on business. The  jurisdiction of this court was challenged  only in respect of cause of action  arising out of infringement of trade mark  and grievance about passing off.  On the same day i.e. March 9, 1989 Misc.  Petition no. 13 of 1989 filed by the  plaintiffs seeking leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent, permitting the  plaintiffs to combine the causes of  action pertaining to the infringement of  the trade mark and passing off with the  cause of action pertaining to the  infringement of Copy Right. The petition  was accepted on the same day and notice  was issued to the defendants and  direction was given that Page 397 this petition  should be heard along with the Notice of  Motion. Accordingly, both the  proceedings are now posted before me for  hearing and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
5. The defendants had commenced sale  in the year 1985 and the sales are  restricted to State of Rajasthan and the  annuals sale figure does not exceed  Rs.22,262\/-from the year 1986 onwards.  The submission of Shri Desai that as the  drug is sold only in Rajasthan and,  therefore, there is no chance of  deception cannot be accepted because the  preparation of the plaintiff is sold all  over India and there is no prohibition  for the defendants to do the same.\n<\/p>\n
9. He has thereafter relied upon the judgment  of the division bench in the case of Arte Indiana, Mumbai v. P. Mittulaul Shah and  Sons, Madras  thereof which reads as under.\n<\/p>\n
3. In view of claims in the plaint  about the infringement of trademark and  passing off, the appellant filed an  application under Clause (14) of the Letters Patent seeking leave of the court  to combine the cause of action relating  to copyright and the cause of action  relating to infringement and passing  off. The leave has been declined by  learned single judge. In terms of the  impugned order, learned single judge has  held that no part of the cause of action  has arisen within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court. The learned  single judge has opined that Clause (14)  provides that leave can be granted by  this court for joinder of causes of  action provided one of such causes of  action has arisen within the  jurisdiction of this court. Clause 14  reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
 14. And we do further ordain that  where plaintiff had several causes of  action against a defendant, such causes  of action not being for land or other  immovable property, and the said High  Court shall have original jurisdiction in  respect of one of such causes of action,  it shall be lawful for the said High  Court to call on the defendant to show  cause why the several causes of action  should not be joined together in one  suit, and to make such order for trial of  the same as to the said High Court shall  seem fit.\n<\/p>\n
A bare reading of the aforesaid  clause shows that the accrual of the  cause of action within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court is not  contemplated to permit joinder of causes  of action. Clause (14) contemplate that  this court shall have original  jurisdiction inrespect of one of such  causes of action to permit two separate  causes of action being combined together  in one suit. The learned single judge  has, however, come to the conclusion that  if right to sue has been conferred by an act of Parliament and it is because of  conferring of such right that a suit can  be maintained, then it cannot be said  that the right to sue is pursuant to  ordinary original jurisdiction of this  court as conferred by the Letters Patent.  It has been also observed that the  expression ‘original jurisdiction’ has  been used to distinguish it from the  extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by  Clause (13) of the Letters Patent.\n<\/p>\n
Page 398<\/p>\n
. The aforesaid are the brief facts  under which the present Appeal has been  preferred by the appellant. We may now  notice some judgments relevant for  decision of the point in issue. A  Division Bench OF this court in Tukojirao  Holder v. Sowkabai [reported in AIR 1929  Bom.100] while considering Clauses(12)  and (14) of the Letters Patent and the  provision of Order 2, Rules 3 and 34,  Civil Procedure Code, has held that what  is relevant is that once cause of action  is within the jurisdiction of this court.  In the present case the cause of action  in relation to infringement of copyright  is admittedly within the jurisdiction of  this court.\n<\/p>\n
12. Next, the question is whether on  facts, the appellant is entitled to grant  of leave as sought for or not. Learned  counsel for the parties rightly adopted a  just and reasonable approach and  submitted that to avoid unnecessary delay  and multiplicity of proceedings, this  court may examine the facts and decide  whether case for grant of leave has been  made out or not. Learned counsel for the  respondent, relying upon a single bench  decision of the Madras High Court in the  case of Brooke Bond India Ltd v. Balaji  Tea (India) P. Ltd (1990 IPLR 266)  contended that considering the facts and  circumstances of the case, the leave deserved to be declined. It was pointed  out by the learned cousnel that the  appellant had given legal notice to the  respondent as far back as on 10th  January, 1997 which was replied on 1st  March, 1997 and also that a complaint was  lodged by the appellant for the alleged  violation of its right with the Spice  Board and the Spice Board had asked the  respondent by its letters dated 28th  January, 1997 requiring the respondent to  furnish its say on the allegations made  by the appellant and on the same being  done, the matter was closed by the spice  Board. That is also said to have  happended at Chennai. It is also pointed  out that recently in the first week of  January 1999, the appellant had filed  against the respondent, a complaint  under Section 483 read with Section a 34,  Indian Penal Code and Sections 78 and 79  of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,  1958 and Section 63 and 64 of the Copy  Right Act, 1957 with the Police  Department at Chennai and as such too,  the appellant was not entitled to grant  of leave.\n<\/p>\n
10. He has thereafter relied upon the judgment  of the apex court in the case of Exphar SA and  Anr. v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd and Anr.<\/a>   particularly  para-12 which reads as under :  12. We would like to emphasise the word “include”. This shows that the  jurisdiction for the purposes of Section  62 is wider than that of the court as  prescribed under the Code of civil  Procedure, 1908. The relevant extract of  the report of the Joint Committee  published in the Gazette of India dated  23.11.1956 which preceded and laid the  foundation for section 62(2) said :\n<\/p>\n
 In the opinion of the Committee  many authors are deterred from  instituting infringement  proceedings because the court in  which suit Page 399 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-claause  (2) accordingly provides that  infringement proceedings may be  instituted in the district court  within the local limits of whose  jurisdiction the person  instituting the proceedings  ordinarily resides, carries on  business etc.<\/p>\n
11. Similarly he has relied upon the judgment  of the single judge of this court in the case of John George Dobson v. The Krishna Mills  reported in ILR 1910 (34) Bom. 564. and the  judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Tukojirao Holkar v. Sowkabai Pandharinath  Rajapurkar reported in AIR 1929 Bom.100. He has  alternatively contended that even on evidence  which has been laid on the issue of jurisdiction  it is established that there is a breach of the  copy right of the plaintiff within the city of  Bombay by virtue of accessing the website and by  soliciting the members within the city of Bombay.  Apart therefrom he contends that under section  62(2) the fact that plaintiffs are situated in  Mumbai is sufficient to confer a jurisdiction of  this court and institute a suit in this court  under section 62(2) of the Copy Right Act. He  has contended that once for the purpose of cause  of action of infringement of copy right this  court has jurisdiction then in that event he is  also entitled to maintain the suit for passing  off and infringement of trade mark by joining the  cause of action under Clause 14 of Letters  Patent.\n<\/p>\n
12. I have heard both the parties at length.  Before I deal with the rival submissions in my  opinion it is necessary to reproduce clause 14 of the Letters Patent and the provisions of Clause  62 of the Copy Right Act on the interpretation  therein where the answer to the jurisdiction  issue essentially lies. Though the oral evidence  is led by the parties on the issue of  jurisdiction I am of the opinion that essentially  it is a question of law which is required to be  determined for the purpose of ascertainment  whether this court has jurisdiction or not to  entertain and try the suit. In so far as Clause  14 is concerned it is clear from plain reading  thereof that a plaintiff can have joinder of  cause of action even if one of the causes of  action is not arising within the territorial  limit of this court, if another cause of action  which is sought to be joined has arisen within  the territorial limit of this court. In the  present case the cause of action for infringement  and\/or passing off of copy rights does arise  within the territorial jurisdiction of this  court. Firstly because under the provisions of  section 62(2) it is this court who has  jurisdiction where the office of the plaintiff who has instituted the suit is situated. In the  present case the plaintiff has office at 144,  Free Press House, Nariman Point, Bombay and this  aspect is not seriously disputed. In para-3 of  the affidavit of P.W.no.1 he has deposed that the  plaintiff has area office at 144, Free Press  House, Nariman Point, Bombay-21 and their area  provides for administrative support to the Lions  Club situated in the countries in India, Sri  Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Thailand, Malaysia,  Brunie, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macao. He has  also deposed in his evidence that large amount of  material is distributed and various activities of  lions club both social as well as charitable  services are rendered and conducted by the  plaintiff in Mumbai. Thus the plaintiff has  their office in Mumbai and therefore they are  entitled to institute the suit under section  62(2) of the Copy Right Act within the  territorial Page 400 jurisdiction of this court. The  provisions of Section 62(2) in contradistinction  to section 20 of C.P. Code provides for  jurisdiction of court where plaintiffs are carrying on business and resides and not the  defendants. Apart from the aforesaid in the  present case by virtue of the evidence of P.W.  no.2 it has been established that defendant no.5  is carrying out their activities also within the  city of this court. The defendant no.5 is  soliciting the members for its organisation in  Mumbai. The evidence of P.W.no.2 to that effect  has gone unchallenged. The website of the  defendant no. 5 can be accessed from Mumbai to  which also there is no challenge. In my opinion  by virtue of the soliciting of the membership and  having access of the website activities of the  defendant no.5 are extended within the local  jurisdiction of this court and thus also this  court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and  try the present suit. IN the case of Burroughs  Wellcome (India) Ltd (supra) the learned single  judge has held that the plaintiff can institute  the suit at the place where they are residing or  carrying out business and the said court will  have jurisdiction to entertain and try the  present suit. Furthermore in the said judgment it has also been held that if the goods are not  sold and distributed within the territorial  jurisdiction of this court still since there is  no prohibition for the defendant to do the same  this court will have jurisdiction. The relevant  portion of the said judgment reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
 5. The defendants had commenced sale  in the year 1985 and the sales are  restricted to State of Rajasthan and the  annuals sale figure does not exceed  Rs.22,262\/-from the year 1986 onwards.  The submission of Shri Desai that as the  drug is sold only in Rajasthan and,  therefore, there is no chance of  deception cannot be accepted because the  preparation of the plaintiff is sold all  over India and there is no prohibition  for the defendants to do the same.\n<\/p>\n
13. The division Bench of this court has also  once again held that in the light of Clause 14  the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain the suit  where they are situated even if no cause of  action has arisen within the territorial limit of  that jurisdiction. It has been thus held that under Clause 14 even if one cause of action has  arisen within the original jurisdiction of this  court then the suit for a second cause of action  which is sought to be joined under Clause 14 can  be maintained in this court.\n<\/p>\n
14. The next contention which has been  advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant  is based on section 29 of the Copy Right Act  which inter-alia prescribes that the  registration is valid only for a period of 60  years from the date of the next calender year  after the date of registration in case of  international trade marks or brand names and in  the present case the copy right registration  having expired a suit on infringement and\/or  passing thereof is not maintainable. I am of the  opinion that the said contention is without any  substance. Firstly there is no foundantion in  support of the factual data that infact  registration has expired in 1982 i.e. 60 years  from 1922. The only reliance placed is inrespect of one question which was asked to P.W.no.1  during his cross examination in which he has  deposed that their copy right registration is of  the year 1922. There is no foundation or further  cross examination inter-alia inrespect of expiry  of registration of the said copy right or non  renewal thereto so as to non-suit the plaintiff.  Mere oblique Page 401 question raised in an examination in  chief without any foundation being laid in support  of the arguments to be advanced before the court  cannot be treated as an evidence to hold that  infact the registration has expired in 1982.  Mr. Shah learned counsel for the defendant has  contended that the witness has not deposed  further that the said registration is subsisting  and valid and the same is renewed and therefore  this court must infer that the registration has  expired in 1982 and thus the suit for passing off  of copy right is not maintainable. The  submission in my opinion is without any merits.  Once the question is asked about the year of  registration of the copy right mark by the  defendant to the P.W. no.1 then it was the duty of the defendant no.1 to proceed further and  cross examine the witness and ought to have  questioned whether the said copy right  registration is subsisting or expired. Apart  therefrom I am of the opinion that registration  of a design for copy right is not a sine-qua-non.  In so far as the suit for passing off for the  copy right design is concerned. The proprietor  or owner of the copy right is entitled to  maintain the suit without its design is  registered for copy rights under the said Act.  The registration thereof is only a prima-facie  evidence of a ownership of such a copy right  design. In a Book ‘Law of Copyright and  Industrial Designs’, Third Edition, P. Narayanan  on the Copy Right Act the learned author has  opined as under :\n<\/p>\n
 Although the Copyright Act under Section 44  provides for registration of a work in  which copyright subsists, registration is  not necessary to claim copyright.  Copyright subsists as soon as the work  is created and given a material form.\n<\/p>\n
15. Under section 54 an ‘owner’ is defined by an inclusive definition and includes an  exclusive licensee or in the case of anonymous  or pseudonymous literary, dramatic, musical or  artistic work an author, publisher and\/or  author’s legal representatives. Thus an owner  can always maintain a suit for infringement or  passing off his copy right irrespective of the  fact whether he has registered his design under  the Copy Right Act or not. Thus in my view the  contention of the learned cousnel for the  defendant that the suit as far as copy right is  concerned is not maintainable because of expiry  of registration in 1982 has no merits and thus  the same is required to be rejected.\n<\/p>\n
16. In the light of the aforesaid I am of the  opinion that this curt has jurisdiction to  entertain and try the present suit for breach and  infringement of copy rights and by virtue of  clause 14 the plaintiffs are entitled to join the  cause of action pertaining to the infringement  and\/or passing off of various articles of Lions Club with the word mark ‘LIONS’ and\/or ‘LEOS’.  In that light of the matter I hold that this  court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the  suit. Accordingly I grant leave to the plaintiff  for joinder of cause of action. The leave  petition under clause 14 is accordingly made  absolute. No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006 Equivalent citations: 2006 (2) BomCR 18, (2006) 108 BOMLR 389, 2006 (4) MhLj 527, 2006 (33) PTC 93 Bom Author: S Kamdar Bench: S Kamdar JUDGMENT S.U. Kamdar, J. Page 392 1. By an order dated 16.10.2002 this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-244091","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nInternational Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"International Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\"},\"wordCount\":5865,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\",\"name\":\"International Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"International Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"International Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006","datePublished":"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006"},"wordCount":5865,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006","name":"International Association Of ... vs National Association Of Indian ... on 25 January, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-01-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-15T19:07:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/international-association-of-vs-national-association-of-indian-on-25-january-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"International Association Of … vs National Association Of Indian … on 25 January, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244091","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244091"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244091\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}