The monetary value of a suit is not the only factor in determining jurisdiction in cases of trademark infringement. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 specifies the minimum level of court at which such proceedings may be held. Section 134 requires that certain trademark cases cannot be brought before any court below a District Court which has jurisdiction to try the case. However, in some cases, the value of the relief claimed would normally place the dispute within the financial jurisdiction of a subordinate civil court. The Kerala High Court recently made it clear that if Section 134 applies, a court below the District Court cannot act as the trial court simply because of the monetary value of the matter.
In the case of M/s Cutis International Cosmetics Clinic Ltd Company and Others v. M/s Cutis Institute of Medicine and Surgery Private Limited [CRP No. 284 of 2025, 2026:KER:68191], decided on September 8, 2026, the Kerala High Court ruled that the District Court should be considered the lowest-ranked court with jurisdiction to try a suit for trademark infringement falling within the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court rejected the argument that the statutory requirement to institute the suit before a District Court could be separated from the question of which court would ultimately try the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case began with an application for a prohibitory injunction and damages on the grounds of infringement of a registered trademark. The total jurisdictional value stated in the statement of claim was INR 5.10 lakh. The defendants maintained that although the action could be brought before the District Court under the Trade Marks Act, its financial value placed it within the jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court. It was submitted that while the District Court might accept the suit, it could not try it. This argument was grounded in Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Section 11(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957. They argued that the court in which the suit is instituted need not be the same court that tries the proceedings. However, the High Court dismissed this distinction.
Analysis by the Court
The Court first considered whether Section 9 CPC allowed a suit to be brought in one court and tried in another simply on the grounds of the latter’s financial jurisdiction. It concluded that Section 9 does not provide for such a distinction, and a court competent to accept a suit under the CPC is generally also competent to decide it, provided it has not been lawfully transferred, or there is no special statutory provision to the contrary.
The Court explained that Section 9 does not create a “jurisdictional vacuum” between the court of institution and the court of trial. Such a difference can occur only if the case is transferred later or if a specific law allows it, not merely because of the general provisions of the CPC. Based on this, the defendants’ argument required more than the rules on the amount involved. The Court then considered whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act permitted this kind of arrangement.
Minimum Court Competent to Try the Suit
Section 134 states that trademark suits must be filed only in a District Court with proper jurisdiction. The High Court regarded this requirement as substantive law rather than merely procedural. It clarified that the provision does not mean a plaintiff must initially file the suit in the District Court solely because the claim’s monetary value falls within that court’s jurisdiction, with the intention of transferring proceedings to a lower court. Such an interpretation would produce an anomalous result, where a court prohibited by law from instituting the suit would adjudicate it. This would substantially defeat the statutory mandate under Section 134. The Court held that, for the purposes of Section 134, the District Court must be regarded as the lowest-grade competent court to try a trademark suit under Section 15 CPC.
The Kerala High Court’s reasoning makes it clear that the expression “lowest grade competent” cannot be determined only by monetary limits. When a special statute excludes courts below a certain level, such courts cannot be considered competent to deal with those matters merely because they would have pecuniary jurisdiction over a claim of that value.
On Court Having Jurisdiction
The High Court also considered Section 134, which refers to a District Court “having jurisdiction to try the suit”. According to the Court, “having jurisdiction” does not mean “having pecuniary jurisdiction”. Section 134 operates as a special jurisdictional provision and overrides the ordinary CPC framework to the extent specifically provided by the Trade Marks Act.
The phrase “to try the suit” holds equal significance. The provision not only mandates that the plaint be submitted to a District Court but also specifies a District Court with jurisdiction to hear the case. Consequently, the statutory language diminishes any suggested distinction between the jurisdiction of the forum of institution and that of adjudication. The Court dismissed the idea that filing a suit before the District Court is merely a procedural step to be followed by transferring the case to a lower court due to limits of pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Court also considered the position of intellectual property disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Court noted that the Government of Kerala, in consultation with the High Court, had designated District Courts and Additional District Courts as Commercial Courts at the District Judge level for disputes arising under statutes including the Copyright Act, 1957, Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Patents Act, 1970 in cases where the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction is required to adjudicate such disputes at first instance.
The Court also noted that the specified minimum value of INR 10 lakh mentioned in that context pertained to commercial suits. Therefore, the lower valuation of the infringement case did not imply that a subordinate civil court was authorised to try the case. Finding no merit in the defendants’ objection, the Kerala High Court dismissed the revision petition.
What the Ruling Clarifies
This ruling clarifies that simply initiating a suit in a District Court does not satisfy the requirement in Section 134. The law also specifies the minimum court level qualified to hear such cases. Using monetary valuation to move a trademark infringement case to a lower court is not permitted under Section 134. Allowing this would enable a lower court to decide cases that could not have been filed there initially under the law.
The judgment also emphasises the interaction between IP law and the broader procedural framework. While the CPC governs civil proceedings, the general rules must align with jurisdictional specifications identified or limited by special laws. Where the Trade Marks Act designates the District Court as the minimum forum, ordinary rules for the lowest pecuniary court cannot undermine the legislative intent.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta