LOK NATH PRASAD GUPTA Vs. BIJAY KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Section 62 of the Copy Right Act, 1957 read in juxtaposition with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which forum can a plaintiff invoke complaining of infringement of copy right or infringement of any other right conferred by the Copy Right Act, is the question arising for decision.

(2.) On the plaintiff's own showing, and admittedly, the plaintiff and the defendant are both residents of Calcutta. Plaintiff who is engaged in the manufacture and sale of chewing tobacco known as khaini under the trade mark RAJA, claims copy right in the pouch which according to him coupled with distinctive colour combination get-up and lay-out constitutes an 'original artistic work' within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copy Right Act (hereinafter 'Act', for short) and the plaintiff is the owner thereof. He complains of the defendant having reproduced the plainiff's artistic work in his own pouch wherein he sells RATAN Khaini and is thereby committing infringement of the plaintiff's copy right. Vide para 13 the plaintiff states, "the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit as the defendant is selling its products within the territorial jurisidiction of this Court. Moreover, this Court has jurisdiction under Section 62 (2) of the Copy Right Act, 1957 as the plaintiffs carry on their business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court."

(3.) Apart from the abovesaid statement in para 13, which is the jurisdiction clause in the plaint, it is nowhere mentioned in the plaint as to how and in what manner, the plaintiff carries on his bjusiness within the jurisdiction of is Court. Nor is it stated as to how and in what manner, the defendant is selling its products within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has not alleged a single transaction of any sale of his product by the defendant himself or anyone else on his behalf in the infringing pouch within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.