Allowed¶64

Pidilite Industries Limited v. Anand Petro Chemicals Lube

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026CRP/653/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Return of plaint; Order VII Rule 10 CPC; territorial jurisdiction; Section 20 and Section 20(c) CPC; Section 115 CPC revisional jurisdiction; Section 134 Trade Mark Act 1999; declaratory suit on distinctness of trademarks UNICORN, MOTO GE-7 versus MOTOMAX; trademark infringement characterization; remand for fresh consideration; Pidilite Industries Limited v. Anand Petro Chemicals Lube; High Court of Karnataka, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 01.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV in O.S.No.189/2021 by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru set aside; matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law; all contentions left open; no order as to costs; trial court to consider the application afresh without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

Pidilite Industries Limited Vs Anand Petro Chemicals… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaint in O.S.No.189/2021 is liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for want of territorial jurisdiction at Bengaluru, given that the defendant manufactures and carries on business at Mumbai and not at Bengaluru. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The Trial Court's order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the application or the suit; all contentions of both parties are left open to be canvassed while considering the application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

¶57

Ratio / Principle

The suit filed by the plaintiff is not for protection of right against infringement of trademark; the prayer is only to declare that the plaintiff's trademarks 'UNICORN' and 'MOTO GE-7' are distinct from and dissimilar to the defendant's trademark 'MOTOMAX'. The Trial Court therefore misinterpreted the scheme of the suit by assuming it to be an infringement suit.

¶48

Key takeaways

Prima facie, the Trial Court's order is misdirected in drawing the impression that the suit is filed for infringement of trademark; many aspects canvassed by counsel were not considered, and the application for return of plaint deserves to be re-heard.ratio¶56

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC by the defendant in O.S.No.189/2021 against the order dated 01.08.2023 rejecting its I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction at Bengaluru (defendant carrying on business at Mumbai). The Trial Court had dismissed the application holding the suit to be one for trademark infringement attracting Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, rendering Section 20(c) CPC inapplicable. The High Court held that the suit, which seeks a declaration that the plaintiff's marks 'UNICORN' and 'MOTO GE-7' are distinct from and dissimilar to the defendant's mark 'MOTOMAX' together with a perpetual injunction against interference, is not a suit for infringement of trademark; the Trial Court misinterpreted the scheme of the suit and its order was prima facie misdirected. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, with all contentions left open and no order as to costs; the Trial Court to reconsider the application afresh without being influenced by the High Court's observations.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.653 OF 2023 (IPR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PIDILITE INDUSTRIES LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT: REGENT CHAMBERS, 7^TH FLOOR, JAMNALAL BAJAJ MARG, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI – 400 021.

¶10

Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT RAMKRISHNA MANDIR ROAD, OFF M. VASANJI ROAD, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI – 400 059. REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD, LEGAL AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY. MR. ASHEESH GUPTA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS RAGHAVAN, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. NIKHILESH RAO M, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

ANAND PETRO CHEMICALS LUBE NO.11, 15^TH CROSS, VISHVANEEDAM POST, MUTTURAYASWAMY LAYOUT,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SUNADAKATTE, BENGALURU – 560 091. REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MRS. MANJU MAHAVEER JAIN, W/O MR. MAHAVEER JAIN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. GOPAL SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.4 IN OS NO.189/2021 ON THE FILE OF XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Though the matter is listed for admission, with the

¶26

consent of both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶27

The defendant has filed this Civil Revision

¶28

Petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'), being aggrieved by the order dated 01.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No.189/2021 by the XVIII Additional City

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Civil Judge, Bengaluru¹ , thereby, I.A.No.IV filed for return of plaint was rejected.

¶33

For the sake of convenience and easy

¶34

reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶35

The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration that the plaintiff's trademarks namely "UNICORN” and “MOTO GE-7" are distinct from the defendant's trademark, namely “MOTOMAX” and the plaintiff's names are dissimilar and also claimed the relief of restraining the defendant by way of perpetual injunction from interfering with the business of the plaintiff.

¶36

5. The defendant entered appearance and filed

¶37

I.A.No.IV under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC for return of the plaint, as the plaintiff does not have cause of action to file a suit before the Court at Bengaluru since the defendant is manufacturing and carrying on business at Mumbai.

¶38

1 hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Therefore, as per Section 20 of CPC, the plaintiff does not have cause of action to file a suit before the Civil Court at Bengaluru, as no cause of action arises there and the defendant is carrying on business in Mumbai, but not at Bengaluru and also does not have any branch or any operation at Bengaluru. Hence, prays to return the plaint.

¶42

The Trial Court, after considering the application and arguments dismissed the said application on the reason that the suit filed by the plaintiff is for infringement of trademark and therefore, attracts Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 (for short ‘TM Act, 1999’) and Section 20 (c) of CPC is not applicable. Therefore, found that the suit is maintainable. Hence, dismissed the application.

¶43

Heard the arguments from both the learned

¶44

counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

¶45

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Upon hearing the lengthy arguments canvassed

¶48

by both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and upon perusal of the plaint, IA and impugned order, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not for protection of his right against infringement of trademark; rather, the prayer of the plaintiff made in the suit that to declare the plaintiff’s trademarks “UNICORN” and “MOTO GE-7” are distinct from the defendant’s trademark “MOTOMAX” and that both trademarks are dissimilar and different. Therefore, the prayer claimed is not for infringement of trademark. When this being the fact, the Trial Court assumed itself upon the application that the relief claimed in the suit is a suit for infringement of trademark. Therefore, in this regard, the Trial Court misinterpreted the scheme of the suit.

¶49

It is submitted that the defendant has filed a suit at Mumbai for infringement of trademark against the plaintiff and there is an operation of order of injunction is in force. The plaintiff has produced a copy of the legal

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

notice issued by the defendant calling upon the plaintiff to cease infringing the copyrights of the defendant and the registered trademark, etc. The said legal notice issued by the defendant is not calling upon the plaintiff to stall the business activities of the plaintiff, but the notice issued by the defendant is not to carry out business activities on products resembling the trademark and copyright of the defendant. Based on this legal notice, the plaintiff has filed the present suit, but this aspect is not considered by the Trial Court.

¶53

Also, upon considering the interim order, the Trial Court has not whispered anything about the suit instituted by the defendant at Mumbai alleging infringement of trademark against the plaintiff. But, when consideration of the suit is concerned, the plaintiff’s suit is not that of infringement of trademark attracting Section 134 of the TM Act, 1999, but the Trial Court has assumed that the suit is filed for infringement of trademark attracting Section 134 of the TM Act, 1999. Hence, many

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

of the aspects as canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties have not been considered by the Trial Court while dealing with the application filed for return of the plaint. Therefore, prima facie, the order passed by the Trial Court is itself misdirected by drawing impression as if the suit is filed for infringement of trademark. Hence, the application filed by the defendant deserves to be re-heard.

¶57

Therefore, the order passed by the Trial Court is requires to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits involved in the application and in the suit, the case is remanded to the Trial Court. All the contentions are left open to be canvassed by both the parties while considering the application filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC.

¶58

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:27940 CRP No. 653 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ORDER

¶63

i. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed .

¶64

ii. The order dated 01.08.2023 passed on I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC in O.S.No.189/2021 by the XVIII

¶65

Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside.

¶66

iii. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for

¶67

fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶68

iv. All the contentions are left open.

¶69

v. No order as to costs.

¶70

Whatever observations made above are only for considering the petition and shall not be construed as conclusions on the discussions and merits involved in the case. The trial court shall consider the application afresh on its merits without being influenced by the above observations.

¶71

Sd/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶72

SRA

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Pidilite Industries Limited v. Anand Petro Chemicals Lube

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pidilite Industries Limited v. Anand Petro Chemicals Lube

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S the Shirts Factory Vs Mr Gopal B R

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs Dr.C. Parvathi

Smt Madevamma @ Mahadevamma Vs Smt Jayamma

Sri. Jayaramaiah Vs Sri.v. Rajendra

Smt. Shoba Mallik @ Shobha Anil Vs the Managing Director

Sri Eshwar Rao Vs Commissioner