SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 254

BADAR DURREZ AHMED
PFIZER PRODUCTS, INC. – Appellant
Versus
RAJESH CHOPRA – Respondent


BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH this application is styled as an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, it is actually an application under Order 7 Rule 10 for return of the plaint. The learned counsel for the parties have argued this application on the understanding that this is an application under Order 7 Rule 10 and it is with this understanding that the present application is being disposed of.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants/ applicants submitted that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is one for injunction and damages for passing off and unfair competition. The learned counsel for the defendants referred to paragraph 48 of the plaint to show that the plaintiff has approached this court on account of two factors. The first factor. being that the defendants had applied for registration of the trademark GEODON and ZOLOFT in Delhi in the Trade Mark Registration which is in the jurisdiction of this court. The second factor stated by the plaintiff to give this court jurisdiction to entertain the present suit was that, acc













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top