Trademark Suits and Civil Court Jurisdiction: Decoding Section 134

Introduction : The trademark disputes, where a suit can be filed, is often as important as the claim itself. The jurisdiction of courts in trademark disputes has become an increasingly important procedural question in Indian intellectual property litigation with time. While Section 134 of the Trade Act, 1999, specifically provides for suits concerning infringement of registered trademarks and passing off to be instituted before a District Court having jurisdiction, the provision further raises another question, increasing the complexity about the precise meaning and scope of the term "District Court". This raises an important procedural issue: whether a Civil Judge can entertain a trademark suit, or whether such matters must necessarily be brought before a District or a court exercising equivalent jurisdiction. This issue becomes particularly relevant when the ordinary hierarchy of civil courts intersects with the special forum contemplated under the trademark law. The answer has significant practical consequences for the litigants, particularly in relation to territorial jurisdiction, interim jurisdictions, litigation costs, evidentiary proceedings, and appellate remedies. Against this background, this article examines this jurisdictional question by analyzing the statutory framework, relevant judicial decisions, while considering how a trademark proprietor can identify the appropriate forum before initiating infringement proceedings.

Legal Provision

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 contains a specific jurisdictional framework for trademark litigation. Section 134 provides that the statutory framework governing the institution of suits relating to infringement of registered trademarks and passing off. Under Section 134(1), any suits dealing with such areas are to be instituted before a District Court having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The provision is significant because it does not merely identify the cause of action but also creates a specific statutory forum for trademark disputes, distinguishing them from ordinary civil actions governed solely by the general rules of jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The provision presumes relevance in determining whether a trademark dispute may be instituted before a Civil Judge or whether it must be presented before a court exercising the jurisdiction of a District Court.

On an addition for trademark litigation, Section 134(2) sets out circumstances in which a registered proprietor may institute proceedings at a forum connected with its place of residence, business, or work, thereby providing jurisdictional basis. The statutory scheme therefore creates an important intersection between the special jurisdiction contemplated under trademark law and the ordinary principles governing civil court jurisdiction. Consequently, it is essential to understand the scope of Section 134, the permissible forum for trademark infringement and passing-off actions; forming the foundation of the emerging jurisdictional debate.

Section 134(1) and the meaning of “District Court”

Section 134(1) of the Trade Marks Act,1999 specifically identifies the court before which an action for infringement of a registered trademark or passing off may be brought. It states that such a suit shall not be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having Jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The expression "District Court" therefore becomes central to determining the competent forum for a trademark action; and raises an important jurisdictional question where a district has several levels of civil courts, including courts presided over by Civil Judges.

While such courts may ordinarily exercise civil jurisdiction within their territorial limits, the provision therefore requires an examination of whether the term "District Court" refers only to the court presided over by a District Judge or whether it may encompass other courts exercising jurisdiction within the district. Thus, the issue is not merely whether a Civil Judge possesses general civil jurisdiction, but whether the court satisfies the statutory threshold prescribed by Section 134 for entering a trademark action. The interpretation of Section 134(1), therefore, lies at the centre of the jurisdictional question examined in this article.

Section 134(2): Additional jurisdiction for the registered proprietor

Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides an additional basis of jurisdiction to the registered proprietor seeking to institute proceedings for infringement of a registered trademark. The provision permits such a proprietor to bring the suit before a District Court within whose jurisdiction the proprietor actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain.

This provision allows the registered proprietor to approach a forum connected with its own commercial or professional presence, expanding the availability of jurisdiction, rather than relying exclusively on the ordinary territorial connections of the defendant or the cause of action. The provision thereby offers great flexibility in selecting an appropriate forum for protecting the trademark rights of registered proprietor. Therefore, the judicial framework governing trademark litigation is an important part of the provision and must be considered alongside the general principles of civil jurisdiction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) provides the general framework governing civil court jurisdiction. Section 9 and 20 are particularly relevant, as they determine the circumstances in which civil courts may entertain suits based on the nature of the dispute and the territorial connection of the parties or cause of action. In trademark litigation, these general rules must be considered alongside the specific forum prescribed under Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 to make the interaction between the two particularly relevant to determining the appropriate form.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015

Trademark infringement and passing-off disputes are relevant to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as it may fall within the category of commercial disputes. A specialized framework is being provided for the adjudication of such disputes by this Act; including provisions concerning jurisdiction and expedited procedures. Therefore, the interaction of this Act with Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is essential when determining the appropriate forum for a trademark suit.

Legal Analysis

The jurisdictional framework governing trademark suits reflects an interaction between the special provisions of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and the general principles of civil jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 134 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, requires suits with a specified trademark infringement and passing-off suits. It states that such proceedings cannot be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, an important question arises regarding whether a Civil Judge, particularly one designated as a Commercial Court, can entertain a trademark dispute. The court conferred and interpret statutory wording and the jurisdiction legally. The central to determine the requirements of Section 134, requires distinction between a court's designation and its actual statutory competence. At the same time, the CPC ordinarily permits civil courts to exercise jurisdiction over suits falling within their competence.

The issue must also be examined in the light of the CPC. Section 9 recognizes the general jurisdiction of civil courts over suits of a civil nature unless their jurisdiction is expressly or impliedly barred. The suits require to be instituted in the lowest-grade court competent to try them under Section 15, while Section 20 gives the ordinary rules governing territorial jurisdiction. However, these alone are not appropriate for judicial level of trademark suits. Though Section 134 provides a statutory requirement that must be considered individually. Similarly, establishing territorial jurisdiction does not necessarily establish that a particular court is competent to hear the dispute. 

A broader approach, however, requires consideration of the actual jurisdiction exercised by the concerned civil court under the applicable state judicial framework. A civil judge is not necessarily the judge of a district court which would have jurisdiction in the sense of the expression “District Court” used in the Statute. The matter may well depend on the hierarchy in which the jurisdiction is allocated to various courts by the statutes and the powers conferred upon them.

The jurisdiction conferred upon a registered proprietor by section 134(2) is, therefore, an additional one, based on his residence, place of business or employment. As such, it does not exclude the need to satisfy the requirement of the jurisdiction as mentioned in Section 134(1). Therefore, in trademark cases, the issue of the forum also includes the question of the competence of the court selected in accordance with the law to hear the case.

The problem of the proper forum is further complicated by the fact that according to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the dispute falls under the commercial disputes of the statute. In addition to the above-mentioned factors, such as the place of the defendant’s residence, the place of the alleged infringement, and the plaintiff’s choice of the forum, it becomes necessary to examine the nature of the dispute, the statute under which it is brought, the jurisdiction conferred upon the competent court, and the commercial court system.

Therefore, the answer to the question “Can a civil judge hear a trademark suit?” cannot be given in general terms. Each case should be considered individually to examine whether the jurisdiction conferred upon the judge meets the requirements of Section 134 of the Trademark Act. This is why the question of this matter is so important for trademark owners, as a lawsuit in an incompetent forum can lead to significant losses of time and money for the plaintiff.

Relevant Case Laws

1. I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (2026): This is the most pertinent case. The Supreme Court was asked to consider if Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits trademark cases being heard before Courts inferior to that of the District Court, is abridged by notifications that designate Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts. The Court sought the opinion of a Larger Bench due to conflicting legal positions, and caused the commercial suit that was pending before the Civil Judge in Jamshedpur to be stayed. The question is thus referred to for further consideration, and is therefore neither decided nor disposed of.

2. Vikram Tea Processors Pvt. Ltd. V. Anant Tukaram Teke & Ors. (2022): A trademark suit covered under Section 134, could not be tried by a Civil Judge (Senior Division) merely because the dispute qualified as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts, said by the Bombay High Court. Section 11 and 21 of Commercial Courts Act was interpreted together to direct to the District Court at Beed; interpreted that Section 134 imposes a specific restriction on the court competent to hear that trademark suits.

Practical Implications

The issue of whether a Civil Judge can hear a trademark suit poses a real-world problem for both the plaintiff and defendant. Before instituting a suit, the plaintiff must determine a particular court capable of hearing the case, which means the court must have jurisdiction in law and fact. While Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 designates a special forum for certain trademark-related disputes, the interactions with the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, make this factor especially pertinent when a Civil Judge is also invested with Commercial Court powers by virtue of the said Act.

A wrong choice of forum can result in jurisdictional objections, unnecessary expenses, and delays in the litigation process, which is especially relevant if a trademark owner seeks an urgent interim injunction to prevent the use of a confusingly similar mark. Even if the plaintiff’s case on the merits is strong, objections to jurisdiction must first be decided by the court before the case can proceed. Moreover, since a plaint can be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is essential for a party to determine the competence of the proposed court before instituting a suit.

The choice of forum also determines what further steps the litigants must take, including the availability of other remedies such as an appeal. It is therefore essential to review the relevant state law, including notifications regarding the establishment of Commercial Courts, conduct a valuation of the dispute, and consult relevant case law. For firms, including the plaintiff in a trademark dispute, which have limited time and resources, the expenses and procedural delays associated with an erroneous choice of forum can be especially damaging.

Conclusion

The very question as to whether a civil judge could hear a trademark suit is predicated upon the necessity to interpret special laws in the context of the general law pertaining to the jurisdiction of civil and commercial courts. Thus, as Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 stipulates the court which has jurisdiction over matters falling under its purview, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 deals with the specific procedures that ought to be followed in adjudicating commercial disputes, the question of the civil judges’ jurisdiction over trademark suits is of great relevance. The resolution of the dispute in question requires a close analysis of the particular legal provisions, as well as the state law and precedents that have been established on the matter.

To begin with, it is necessary to comment on the fact that the issue raised in the case is far from being straightforward and, thus, requires further discussion. The Supreme Court proceedings in the case I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. are of great relevance to the matter, as the larger bench was requested to hear the dispute over the jurisdiction to resolve trademark-related issues. Therefore, in order to come to a conclusion, it would be essential to review the current status of this particular jurisdictional issue.

In the end, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of the correct determination of the court’s competence. The trademark-related disputes would benefit from extensive considerations in the cases filed with the respective jurisdictions. In this light, the thorough review of the procedures and steps taken to file a trademark-related suit would have prevented further jurisdictional disputes and, consequently, allowed for the faster resolution of the dispute in question. The matter at hand demonstrates the necessity to harmonize the trademark-related legislation with the general law pertaining to commercial courts.

Author: Sakshi Shrivastava in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney

Endnotes

1. Trade Marks Act 1999, s 134.

2. Code of Civil Procedure 1908, ss 9, 15 and 20, Order VII r 10.

3. Commercial Courts Act 2015, ss 2(1)(c)(xvii), 3, 11 and 21.

4. Vikram Tea Processors Pvt Ltd v Anant Tukaram Teke (Bombay High Court, Writ Petition No 8048 of 2020, 1 July 2022).

5. I.S.D.S. Pvt Ltd v M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court of India, order dated 21 September 2026).

6. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc v Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd (Supreme Court of India, 1 July 2015).