Case: M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty.Ltd. &amp; Another

2. Two First Appeals were filed in the Delhi High Court, being FAO No.131 and 132 of 2008, against two orders, both dated 28th March, 2008, passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata, under Section 19(1) of the Designs Act, 2000, cancelling two registered designs for "Insecticide Coil" in Class 12 belonging to the Respondent No.1 herein. The question for determination before the High Court in the two appeals was whether the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the same against the order passed by the Controller of Patents and Designs, Kolkata. Inasmuch as, in the said two appeals, it was held by the Delhi High Court that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, these two appeals have been preferred by M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. against the said decision.3. On 27th January, 2005, the Respondent No.1 herein, M/s. Reckitt Benckiser Australia Pty. Ltd., filed a suit, being C.S.(O.S.)No.121 of 2005, against the appellant, in the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of its Registered Designs bearing Nos.184136 and 184137. The said suit is yet to be decided. On 4th February, 2005, the appellant herein filed his written statement in the suit, inter alia, contending that the aforesaid Designs of the Respondent No.1 were liable to be cancelled under Section 22(3) of the Designs Act, 2000, on the ground that registration of the same had been obtained by concealment of facts and infringement of the Designs Registration Nos.197811 and 197426, before the Controller of Designs at Kolkata. Similarly, the appellant herein also filed a Designs Cancellation Petition for cancellation of the Registered Design Nos.184135, 184136 and 184137 standing in the name of the Respondent No.1 on the same ground as alleged by the respondent in its petition for cancellation of the appellants Designs. After certain interlocutory proceedings relating to the prayer made for transfer of the cancellation proceedings from the Controller of Designs to the Delhi High Court, the Controller of Designs heard the parties on 5th March, 2008 and reserved his order. Meanwhile, the respondents filed FAO (OS) No.101/08 against the orders dated 13.2.2008 and 5.3.2008 passed by the Controller of Designs, Kolkata and the same was converted into a Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Initially the learned Single Judge was doubtful about the maintainability of the appeals. Thereafter, on 28th March, 2008, by three separate orders the Controller of Designs, Kolkata, cancelled the Registered Design Nos.184135, 184136 and 184137 belonging to Respondent No.1. As indicated hereinabove, three First Appeals were preferred before the Delhi High Court, where a question arose with regard to the High Courts jurisdiction to entertain the appeals and by the orders impugned in these appeals the Delhi High Court held that the appeals were maintainable and it had jurisdiction to entertain the same.

Reasoning: 22. The reliance placed by the High Court on the judgment in Girdharilal Guptas case (supra) appears to be misplaced, inasmuch as, while under the 1911 Act the High Court acts as an Original forum, under the 2000 Act the High Court acts as an Appellate forum, which are two separate jurisdictions operating in two different fields. In the instant case, the doctrine of cause of action, as understood under Section 20 C.P.C., has been imported on the basis of the provisions of Section 51A of the Designs Act, 1911, whereas the case of the appellant would fall under Section 19 of the Designs Act, 2000, where the High Court functions as the Appellate forum. The cause of action for the instant proceedings is most certainly the cancellation of the registered design of the appellant which happened in the State of West Bengal which gave the Calcutta High Court the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Delhi High Court, in our view, erred in holding that the cause of action had arisen within its local jurisdiction, whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court was on account of the cancellation of registration of the design and not on account of the impact thereof in any particular State. This is what distinguishes the decision in Girdharilal Guptas case from the facts of this case.23. Apart from the fact that the parties to the suit were in Kolkata, it is clear that the cause of action for the suit arose in Kolkata by virtue of the order passed by the Controller in relation to the appellants design. As the facts indicate, the cause of action for the suit arose in Kolkata, which, in any event, had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Having erroneously applied the decision in Girdharilal Guptas case (supra) to the facts of the case, the High Court was led into error in holding that the consequence of the cancellation gave jurisdiction to the Delhi High Court to entertain the suit, without considering in its proper perspective the provisions of Section 51A of the 1911 Act in contrast to the provisions of Section 19 of the 2000 Act.24. The various decisions cited by Mr. Dave to support his submissions that the question as to which High Court would have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under Section 19, had to be determined on the basis of the statutory provisions and not on the basis of dominus litus or the situs of the Appellate Tribunal or the cause of action. We are inclined to accept Mr. Daves submission that the Delhi High Court had erred in making a comparison between the provisions of Section 51A of the 1911 Act and Section 19(2) of the 2000 Act, which operate on different planes.