Arcee Electronics Vs Arceeika

Cause of Action and Jurisdiction in IP Cases

Introduction: The dispute in Arcee Electronics v. M/s. Arceeika & Ors. revolves around the territorial jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in an action for trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff, a long-established electronics retail chain, sought to protect its registered trademark “ARCEE” against alleged infringing use by the defendants under the name “ARCEEIKA.” While the plaintiff argued that the Court had jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the defendants challenged the jurisdiction and sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. The case thus turned on whether the plaintiff carried on business within the Court’s territorial limits or whether any part of the cause of action had arisen there.

Factual Background:The plaintiff, Arcee Electronics, is a partnership firm engaged in the sale of electronic goods through an extensive network of showrooms in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. The firm, incorporated in 1986, was initially managed by its founder, Mr. Premnath Sharma, and over the years built a reputation for its “ARCEE” mark, which has been in use for nearly four decades. By the time of the suit, the plaintiff operated 23 showrooms, one head office, and one warehouse in Navi Mumbai and Raigad.

In August 2024, the defendants allegedly opened a showroom under the name “ARCEEIKA,” adopting a similar colour scheme, font, and typeface, which the plaintiff contended was intended to trade upon its business model and goodwill. The defendants, like the plaintiff, were engaged in selling electronic goods. The plaintiff claimed that such acts amounted to infringement of its registered trademark and passing off, prompting the filing of the present suit.

Procedural Background:The defendants filed an interim application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the ground that the Bombay High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Defendant No. 2 argued that the plaintiff neither had a place of business within the Court’s jurisdiction nor had any part of the cause of action arisen there.

The plaintiff countered by asserting jurisdiction based on two grounds: first, that it carried on business in Mumbai city by selling and delivering goods to customers there; and second, that the defendants also carried on business in Mumbai and had delivered infringing goods to customers within the city. In support, the plaintiff relied on certain invoices showing sales to customers with Mumbai addresses.

Core Dispute

The core issue was whether the Bombay High Court, on its Original Side, had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for trademark infringement and passing off, in light of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Specifically, the question was whether the plaintiff could establish that it carried on business within Mumbai city or that any part of the cause of action had arisen there.

Discussion on Judgments:The defendants relied on the judgment in Manugraph India Limited v. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 5334, wherein it was held that a plaintiff cannot file a suit in a jurisdiction where it neither carries on business nor where any part of the cause of action has arisen.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia & Anr., (2015) 10 SCC 161. In that case, the Supreme Court held that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Section 62 of the Copyright Act provide an additional forum to the plaintiff, enabling it to sue where it resides or carries on business. However, this privilege cannot be abused to drag a defendant to a remote jurisdiction unconnected to the dispute. The Court clarified that if the plaintiff carries on business and the cause of action arises in the same place, the suit must be filed there, and not in another jurisdiction where the plaintiff merely has a subordinate office.

The principles from Sanjay Dalia were adopted in Manugraph India, where it was further explained that while a plaintiff may sue where it resides or carries on business under Section 134(2), or where the cause of action arises under Section 20 CPC, the choice is limited. It cannot file suit in an unrelated location merely because of a satellite office.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:Justice Sandeep V. Marne observed that the plaint itself was devoid of any averment asserting that the plaintiff had a place of business within Mumbai city. The plaintiff’s pleadings clearly established that all its showrooms, head office, and warehouse were situated in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District.

The invoices relied upon by the plaintiff were found insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The Court noted that the place of sale, not the place of delivery, determines the plaintiff’s place of business for the purposes of Section 134(2). Mere delivery of goods to a customer’s address in Mumbai did not amount to carrying on business there. Similarly, the defendants’ alleged sales to Mumbai customers did not amount to infringing acts committed within the Court’s jurisdiction, as the purchases took place in Navi Mumbai showrooms.

Applying Sanjay Dalia, the Court held that Section 134(2) did not help the plaintiff, as it did not carry on business in Mumbai city. Section 20 CPC was also inapplicable because no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial limits of the Bombay High Court’s Original Side.

Final Decision: The Court concluded that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It ordered that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for presentation before a court having proper jurisdiction. 

Law Settled in This Case: This decision reaffirms that under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, jurisdiction is conferred only upon a court within whose territorial limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business. Mere delivery of goods to customers in a jurisdiction does not amount to carrying on business there. Additionally, Section 20 CPC can provide jurisdiction where part of the cause of action arises, but the cause must be supported by specific pleadings in the plaint. The ruling reiterates that Sanjay Dalia prohibits misuse of jurisdictional provisions to drag defendants to courts in remote or unrelated locations.

Case Title:Arcee Electronics Vs Arceeika & Ors.

Date of Order: 11 August 2025

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit (L) No.19290 of 2024 

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:13402

Name of Court: High Court of Bombay

Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi