Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 840
High Court Of Delhi
LALLI ENTERPRISES - Appellant
Versus
DHARAM CHAND - Respondent
R.F.A. 29 of 2002
Decided On : 09/22/2000
The suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright could lie against any party involved in the infringement chain, the production of cash memos was not necessary at the initial stage, and territorial jurisdiction could be determined later with evidence.
Headnote:
Trade Mark Infringement - Jurisdiction - Summary: The court found that the suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright could lie against any party involved in the infringement chain, not just the manufacturer of the goods. The production of cash memos was not necessary at the initial stage, and territorial jurisdiction could be determined later with evidence. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright against the defendant for manufacturing and marketing match boxes with a deceptively similar trade mark. The learned Single Judge rejected the plaint at the threshold without issuing summons to the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of the impugned judgment were not sustainable. It held that the suit could lie against any party involved in the infringement chain, the production of cash memos was not necessary at the initial stage, and territorial jurisdiction could be determined later with evidence. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues included whether the suit could lie against the manufacturer of the goods, the necessity of producing cash memos, and the determination of territorial jurisdiction at the initial stage.
Ratio Decidendi: The suit for passing off trade mark and infringement of copyright could lie against any party involved in the infringement chain, the production of cash memos was not necessary at the initial stage, and territorial jurisdiction could be determined later with evidence.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded for trial in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
( 2 ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel, we are of the view that all the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in support of the impugned judgment are not sustainable. It is not correct to say that an action of the present type lies only against the manufacturer of the goods. It can lie against any party involved in the infringement chain. So far as the production of cash memos is concerned, it is not necessary. One thing which has to be kept in view is that such clandestine sales are often without cash memo. Secondly, the averment regarding sale in the plaint is enough at least at the stage when summons to the defendants are to be issued in the suit. At that stage only the averments in the plaint are to be seen. The learned counsel has relied on a judgment of this Court in M/s. Jawahar Engineering company and Others v. M/s. Jawahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. , reported as 1983 PTC 207. Similarly, at this stage it could not have been said that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The averments in the plaint are sufficient for present purposes. The aspect of territorial jurisdiction can be, if at all considered at a later stage it may require evidence to be led to determine territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly the impugned judgment is set aside. The matter is remanded for trial of the suit in accordance with law. Let the suit be placed before the learned Single judge for being proceeded with further.
( 3 ) THE appeal stands disposed of. Since the respondent is ex parte, there will be no order as to costs
