Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28-08-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Applicant – M/s Vinbros and Co. (represented by Partner Mr. V.C. Raamsukaesh). Respondents – 1) M/s Chamundi Winery and Distillery (Partner Mr. K. Ananda Rao) and 2) M/s R.R. Wine Mart (Managing Partner Mr. Ramamurthy).
  • Proceedings: Application A No. 2575 of 2026, C.S(Comm.Div.) SR.No.19644 of 2026, filed for leave to sue the respondents for alleged trademark infringement under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court.
  • Applicant’s Contentions: Claimed ownership of a registered trademark; argued that registration with the Trade Marks Registry in Chennai gave the Court jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act; cited opposition to respondents’ trademark application as evidence of knowledge and infringement; contended that leave under Clause 12 was unnecessary.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑arguments: Admitted that only the situs of registration lay within the Court’s jurisdiction; asserted no cause of action existed in Chennai as the infringing products were not sold there and neither party carried on business in the Court’s local limits; relied on Section 20 CPC and Clause 12 to argue the suit should be dismissed.
  • Judicial Reasoning: The Court examined precedents, notably the Full Bench decision in Duro Flex Pvt., Ltd. vs. Duroflex Sittings System (2014 5 LW 673), which held that mere registration of a trademark in Chennai does not, by itself, create a cause of action for filing a suit in the Madras High Court. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161, emphasizing that a suit must be filed where the plaintiff resides or where the cause of action arises, and that Section 134 does not override the requirement of appropriate forum.
  • Specific Findings: Paragraph 75 of the plaint expressly stated that the defendants’ infringing products were not sold in Chennai and that the plaintiff sought leave to sue in this Court. The Court found no pleaded cause of action beyond the situs of registration, aligning with the Full Bench’s earlier ruling.

Final Outcome

  • The application for leave to sue was rejected.
  • The Registry was directed to return the plaint to the applicant for filing before the appropriate Court.
  • No costs were awarded to either side.

Topics: Trademark Jurisdiction, Court Order