Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits is determined by the location of the plaintiff's business and the occurrence of the cause of action, necessitating return of the plaint when these criteria are unmet.

Judgment :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1) Plaintiff has instituted the present Suit for infringement of its registered trademark ‘ARCEE’ and also for the tort of passing off.

2) Plaintiff is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of sale of electronic goods through various showrooms set up by it. Plaintiff claims that it is registered proprietor of the mark ‘ARCEE’. Plaintiff has set up a network of showrooms for sale of electronic goods at various locations such as Vashi, Nerul, CBD Belapur, Kamothe, Kalamboli, Uran, Ulwe, Panvel, Ghansoli and Airoli. Plaintiff also has stores in Alibaug, Karjat, Khopoli, Neral, Pen, Roha, Mangaon and Mahad in Raigad District. Plaintiff claims that it has 23 showrooms, one head office and 1 warehouse in Navi Mumbai and Raigad District. Plaintiff has given details of his turnover in paragraph 3.11 of the Plaint. On 18 August 2021 Firm’s name was changed to M/s. Arcee International. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants have opened a showroom by name ‘ARCEEIKA’ adopting similar colour, font and type so as to steal Plaintiff’s business model since August 2024. Plaintiff claims that the Defendants are selling electronic goods from their showrooms. This is how Plaintiff has brought in the present suit against the Defendants by complaining infringement of its registered trademark and also for an action of passing off.

3) Defendant No.2 has filed application under provisions of Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) seeking return of the Plaint on the ground that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try the present Suit. Defendant No. 2 has contended that in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, neither Plaintiff has a place of business nor has any cause of action arisen. It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that since a Leave Petition under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent (Bombay) is filed dealing with the issue of jurisdiction, Plaintiff is prepared to answer the objection of territorial jurisdiction without filing a formal reply to the Interim Application (L) No.32557 of 2024. Accordingly, both the sides are heard on the prayer of Defendant No.2 for return of the Plaint.

4) Mr. Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff would submit that part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court and that therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit. In support of his contention, he would submit that Plaintiff has several showrooms in Navi Mumbai and District-Raigad and also carries on business in Mumbai city. That Plaintiff routinely supplies electronic goods to the customers within the territorial limits of this Court. That since Plaintiff carries on business in Mumbai City as well, Defendants’ acts constitute infringement of Plaintiff’s marks as well as passing off. He would therefore submit that the Suit is correctly filed in this Court on the strength of the Plaintiff carrying on business in the Mumbai city. Additionally, he would submit that Defendants also carry on business in Mumbai city. He would submit that infringing acts have been committed by the Defendants by delivery of electronic goods to various customers in Mumbai. In support, he has placed on record invoice/challan dated 2 September 2022 issued by Defendant No.1 to a customer in Chembur. He would therefore submit that both on count of Plaintiff carrying on business in Mumbai city as well as Defendants’ act of supplying electronic goods to their customers in Mumbai city, this Court would have territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present Suit under Section