The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the choice of jurisdiction and the application of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Copyright Act, 1957 in determining territorial jurisdiction in cases of trademark and copyright infringement.

( 1 ) BY way of a present Objection, the Defendant No. 2 has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringing its Trademark and Copyright and also for Passing-Off- The Plaintiff is the proprietor of the Trade Mark PANADOL and PANADOL EXTRA, which is admittedly an invented word. It has been registered in Class 5 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Marks Act) with effect from 21/10/1982 in favour of the Plaintiff. On 7/9/1999 the following ex parte ad interim orders were granted:

"i. A. No. 8797/99 notice for 31/1/2000. The plaint and this application discloses that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the mark PANADOL and has spent Millions of Pounds on its advertisement and promotion since 1994. Its turn over in this period 1994-1998 is approximately 170 million Pounds. The concerned Cartons have been filed and on a perusal of the offending Carton of "paramol extra" and "pamacol", it is quite evident that the Defendants are attempting to not only infringe the plaintiff s trade mark, but also to pass off its goods as that of the plaintiff. Confusion in the mind of the consumer is certain to be caused. There is also an obvious infringement of the Plaintiff s Trade mark. In my view a good prima facie case has been made out for the issuance of an ex parte Ad Interim injunction as prayed for in paragraph 30 of this application. The object of granting the injunction would be defeated if notice of suit is given in the first instance. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing the Defendant, their principal officers, servants, agents and representative are restrained from manufacturing, exporting and selling and offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trademarks PAMACOL and PARAMOL or any other mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark PANADOL and from reproducing, printing or publishing, selling or offering for sale any label or packaging which is a comparable imitation or substantial reproduction of the Plaintiffs PANADOL carton amounting to infringement of copyright thereto and/or doing any other thing as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of the goods and business of the defendants as and for those of the plaintiffs. Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3civil Procedure Code be made within three days. Dasti. "

( 2 ) THE Defendant No. 2 has filed I. As. 550-551/2000 for vacation of these orders under Order XXXIX Rule 4;and for the return of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as civil Procedure Code ). The Defendants have chosen not to file a Reply to the Plaintiffs application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2civil Procedure Code, on which the extracted injunction has been granted. I shall instead treat the application for vacation of the injunction as a reply to the Plaintiff s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 civil Procedure Code. since it is in the interests of Justice that all applications which can be disposed off on the basis of arguments addressed at the Bar should be so done. Piecemeal adjudication, at the convenience of any party, should be avoided due to the drastic paucity of time available to the Court.

( 3 ) MR. H. A. Ahmadi, Learned Counsel for the Defendants, has contended that since the averments in the Plaint are that the cause of action arose in June 1999 when the Plaintiff received information that the Defendants were selling the infringing goods in Uganda,the suit should not be entertained and tried in Delhi or any other Court in India. He argued that Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) did not permit the dispute to be adjudicated in Delhi especially since the Plaintiffs have no b