Court clarifies Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 overrides pecuniary jurisdiction norms under CPC and Kerala Civil Courts Act, reinforcing special jurisdictional provisions for trade mark disputes
In a significant judgment dated September 8, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., has clarified the jurisdictional provisions relating to trade mark infringement suits under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court held unequivocally that such suits must be instituted and tried only in a District Court, regardless of the pecuniary value involved.
The ruling arose from a revision petition filed by M/s. Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd. challenging the maintainability of a suit filed by M/s. Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited. The respondent's suit alleged trade mark infringement and sought a prohibitory injunction and damages amounting to Rs. 5,10,000/-. The petitioner contended that while the suit could be instituted in a District Court, the trial should occur in a lower court (Munsiff Court) based on pecuniary jurisdiction norms under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 and Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957.
Rejecting this contention, the High Court emphasized that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act is a special statutory provision which expressly mandates that no suit for trade mark infringement shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court competent to try the suit. The court explained that this provision overrides the general principles of jurisdiction under the CPC and Kerala Civil Courts Act. It clarified that the phrase "District Court having jurisdiction" refers not merely to pecuniary jurisdiction but to the competence of the court to try such suits.
Justice Mohammed Nias observed that interpreting Section 134 to allow institution in the District Court followed by trial in a lower court would defeat the legislative intent and render the provision meaningless. The court further ruled that the distinction between the court of institution and the court of trial, as argued by the petitioner, cannot be drawn merely on the basis of Section 9 CPC but only if there is a lawful transfer or a special enactment.
The judgment also highlighted the designation by the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the High Court, of all District Courts and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts at the District Judge level. These Commercial Courts have jurisdiction over commercial disputes including trade mark cases, provided the dispute value meets the threshold prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that trade mark infringement suits must be filed and tried only in District Courts. This judgment reaffirms the primacy of statutory provisions governing intellectual property disputes and strengthens procedural clarity for litigants and courts.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - A suit for trade mark infringement must be instituted and tried in a District Court as mandated by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, irrespective of the pecuniary jurisdiction of lower courts.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 9, Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 Section 11(2), Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 3
