SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

The two parties have locked horns over “Darjeeling” in Calcutta. The claimant asserts exclusivity over “Darjeeling” and insists that it may not be used by the defendant without leave; the defendant extols the virtues of the sights and sounds of the idyllic crucible of nature’s bounty that answers by that lilting description and maintains that there is more to “Darjeeling”- its misty mornings, alluring snow caps in the distance and the innocence of its apple-cheeked children – than the tea that is grown thereabouts. The plaintiff is a statutory body set up under the Tea Act, 1953. The plaintiff is the registered owner of the two sets of trade marks. The marks are word

“Darjeeling” and a round device featuring the exquisite profile of a lady to the right holding the easily recognisable two-leaves-and-a-bud in her left hand and the word “Darjeeling” spelt out on the edge running from 9 o’clock to 12 o’clock. The word and device marks are independently registered under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act 1999 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff’s grievance here is in the defendant naming a section of its luxurious ITC Sonar Hotel in the city as the “Darjeeling Lounge.” The plaintiff has run its case at several levels: first claiming that the use of “Darjeeling” in the name of the exclusive lounge amounts to infringement of the plaintiff’s “Darjeeling” geographical indication mark and certification mark; that, at any rate, it amounts to passing-off; and, that it leads to dilution of the “Darjeeling” brand which is only the plaintiff’s to exploit. The defendant attempts to cut the plaintiff’s case at the very root. The defendant says that before discrediting the claim on the basis of what can and does go on at the defendant’s “Darjeeling Lounge,” it is the very foundation of the claim which is flawed. The defendant reads the Geographical Indications (GI) Act to permit a grievance relating to the breach of a right conferred by the registration of a mark thereunder to be restricted to goods. It suggests that since the GI Act is concerned with goods and seeks to protect only goods that have an element of distinctiveness on account of quality or reputation or other characteristic which is attributable to their geographical origin, the registration thereunder permits a complaint by a proprietor against any person or persons connected with the goods complained of; but does not stretch the rights conferred by registration thereunder to proceed against any service or persons connected with the service complained of. The merits of the plaintiff’s complaint – the prima facie case that is the lot of the interlocutory court – would not much detain the assessment; it is the more deep-rooted criticism by the defendant of the plaintiff’s perceived cause of action that may. The defendant wants the GI Act understood as providing protection only to goods against goods and persons connected therewith and not having room enough to allow a complaint by a registered proprietor against any service or persons connected with the impugned service. The GI Act announces in its preamble that it provides for the registration and better protection of geographical indications relating to goods. In its statement of objects and reasons, the bill that preceded the Act proclaimed that unless a geographical indication was protected in the country of its origin, there would be no obligation under the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) for other countries to extend reciprocal protection and that would be to the detriment of goods bearing Indian geographical indications in the international market. Section 2(1)(f) of the GI Act defines “goods” to mean any agricultural, natural or manufactured goods or any goods of handicraft or of industry including foodstuff. The following sub-section gives an inclusive definition of “indication” to imply any name, geographica