The main legal point established in the judgment is that the threat of selling offending goods in a specific jurisdiction confers territorial jurisdiction on the courts to entertain a suit for passing off and grant injunction.

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, according to the plaintiff, the defendants intended to sell and offer for sale the offending goods in Delhi. Paragraph 48 of the plaint is reproduced hereinbelow:"48. This Hon ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit by virtue of the fact that the first and the second Defendants have applied for registration of the trade mark GEODON and ZOLOFT in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble court. Furthermore, the Defendants intend to sell and offer for sale the offending goods in Delhi, within the jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court. This hon ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. "

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in an action for passing off since the defendants have not sold any goods in Delhi, therefore, no cause of action would have arisen in Delhi and consequently this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this suit for the threatened or intended sale of the offending goods in Delhi.

( 4 ) INSOFAR as the first factor mentioned by the plaintiffs in the plaint that the defendants had appljed for registration in Delhi is concerned, the learned counsel for the defendants submitted that the mere filing of an application for registration in Delhi would not grant territorial jurisdiction to this court to entertain the suit. He submitted that this issue is entirely covered by the Supreme court decision in the case of Dhodha House and Patel Field Marshal Industries Vs. S. K. Maingi and P. M. Diesel Ltd : 2006 (32) PTC 1.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff controverted the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the defendants. In the first instance, he submitted that the Supreme court decision in Dhodha House (supra) does not hold that mere filing of an application by the defendants for registration of the very trademark which is being used by the plaintiffs would not grant territorial jurisdiction to the court to hear the matter. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also submitted that as regards the second factor an injunction can certainly be granted when there is a threat of the goods being sold in Delhi. He submitted that it is not necessary that before an injunction is granted, the goods must have been sold in delhi. Even if there is an intention to sell and the plaintiff is able to make out a prima facie case of such intention then the court can grant an injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out their intention to sell the offending goods at a particular place. He relied strongjy upon the decision of a Division bench of this court in the case of M/s jawahar Engineering Company and others, Ghaziabad Vs. M/s Jawahar engineers Pvt Ltd, Sri Rampur Distt. Ahmednagar :1983 PTC 207.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the argume

Click Here to Read the rest of this document