Trademark infringement suits must be tried by District Courts even when their valuation falls within Munsiff jurisdiction, rules Kerala High Court

The respondent-plaintiff instituted O.S. No. 6 of 2024 before the I Additional District Court, Kozhikode, seeking a prohibitory injunction and damages for alleged infringement of its registered trade mark.

The relief of injunction was valued at ₹1,000 and the damages were quantified at ₹5,00,000, resulting in a total jurisdictional valuation of ₹5,01,000.

The revision petitioners-defendants contended that, although Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act permitted institution of the suit before a District Court, the suit could not be tried by that court because its pecuniary value fell within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court under Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957.

The Additional District Court rejected this objection in I.A. No. 3 of 2025, prompting the present civil revision petition.

Whether a suit for infringement of a registered trade mark, required by Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to be instituted before a District Court, can nevertheless be tried by a court inferior to the District Court on the basis of its pecuniary valuation?

Whether the District Court is competent to entertain and adjudicate the suit notwithstanding that the suit valuation is below the ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court under the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957?

The Court considered Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which confers jurisdiction over civil suits unless barred, and Section 15 CPC, which requires institution of suits in the court of the lowest grade competent to try them.

It also considered Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 concerning ordinary pecuniary jurisdiction.

The principal statutory provision applied was Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits institution of a trade-mark infringement suit in a court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit; the Court held that this provision operates as a special jurisdictional rule overriding the ordinary CPC position to that extent.

The Court additionally referred to the designation of District and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts under Sections 3(1), 3(1-A) and 3(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, in relation to specified commercial disputes.

The Court rejected the defendants’ attempt to distinguish between the court where a trade-mark suit is instituted and the court competent to try it.

Section 9 CPC does not create a jurisdictional division under which a suit may be instituted in one court but necessarily tried by an inferior court solely because of valuation; such a distinction can arise only through a lawful transfer or a specific statutory provision.

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act expressly requires institution before a District Court and refers to a District Court “having jurisdiction to try the suit.”

Treating the District Court merely as a formal forum of institution, followed by transfer to a Munsiff Court on pecuniary grounds, would permit an inferior court to try a suit which Section 134 prohibits from being instituted before such court and would defeat the statutory mandate.

Accordingly, for trade-mark infringement suits, the District Court is the lowest competent court for both institution and trial, notwithstanding the suit’s valuation.

The Court found the Commercial Courts Act framework consistent with the District Court’s jurisdiction in the present matter.

The objection to the maintainability and trial of the suit before the Additional District Court was therefore rejected, and the civil revision petition was dismissed.