The Delhi High Court has dismissed a copyright violation plea of US-based Archie Comic Publications, saying that that the company does not have any office in India. A division bench said, "This Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the (com)plaint." It said, "Where a Court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, the order passed would be a nullity."
The Division Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Vikramkjit Sen was hearing the petition of Archie Comic Publications that said Mumbai-based Purple Creations used its mark 'Archies' in violation of the US company's copyright. The court said, "The appellant (Archie Comic) in this case does not have any registered office in India, much less in Delhi. The sole averment for carrying on business in Delhi is that one bookshop, that is, Variety Book Stores (in Connaught Place) has been importing books, comics etc.”
Archie Comic Publication claimed that they have been extensively using this mark in India since 1979. But the court dismissed arguments of Archie’s counsel, saying the comics were only imported to India since 1979 and sold through a bookstore. The plaintiff company said Purple Creations first started using their trademark in June 2004, via “ARCHIES and device”, “PURPLE ARCHIE” and “ARCHIES”.
Archie Comics is an American comic book publisher with headquarters in New York, known for its many series featuring fictional teenagers Archie Andrews, Betty Cooper, Veronica Lodge, Reggie Mantle and Jughead Jones. The characters were created by publisher/editor John L Goldwater, written by Vic Bloom, and drawn by Bob Montana.
The judgment is being seen (according to the Spicy IP blog) as an interplay between Section 134 (2) of the Trademark Act and 62(2) of the Copyright Act vis-a-vis Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Code of Civil Procedure allows a party to file a suit where the defendant resides, or carries on business or personally works for gain or where a part of the cause of action has arisen against the opposite party. On the other hand, the TM Act and the Copyright Act provide an additional forum for the filing of a law suit i.e. where the plaintiff (the aggrieved party) resides, or carries on business or works for gain.
The Delhi High Court held that the provisions in the TM Act and the CPC would have to be read conjunctively, i.e that apart from the fact of residence/ business of the plaintiff being carried out, a part of the cause of action would also have to have arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court. It held that this was not the case at hand, and dismissed the suit.
If this does not go to the Supreme Court, it will give a sanction to innumerable intellectual property thieves in India.
