Facts:

• Exphar Sa &Anr (Appellant) was a manufacturer of medicine for the treatment of malaria under the trademark ‘Maloxine’. Appellant No. 1 had claimed to be the owner of the copyright in the trademark ‘Maloxine’.
• Appellants No. 1 had entered into a contract by which Appellant No. 2 was authorized to manufacture tablets under the Appellants’ trademark for sale in the rest of the world apart from Nigeria.
• The Appellants filed the case against Eupharma Laboratories Ltd (Respondent No. 2) because, despite the termination of the agreement to manufacture “Maloxine” tablets with Appellant no 1, had continued to supply the tablets to M/s Moore Associates Ltd for an injunction to restrain the Respondents from passing off the trademark & adopting its distinctive carton design, delivery of the infringing goods and an account of their use of the disputed mark.
  

Background/Procedural Posture:

• An ex-parte interim order was initially granted in favour of the Appellants, which was later confirmed on 26th October 1998 by a learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
• The Respondents and the Appellants preferred appeals from this decision. The appeals were rejected on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
• Thus, the present Special Leave Application was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
  

Main Issue:

Whether the Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 restricts the jurisdiction of the District Court?