The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court may consider the possibility of territorial jurisdiction based on the defendants' alleged sale of goods in a specific location, and may allow necessary amendments to the plaint for determining the matters in controversy between the parties.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. This is a suit for permanent injunction. The Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be the owner of the trademark TIYA having acquired it by assignment from Plaintiff No. 2. It is alleged that the mark TIYA was registered in the name of Plaintiff No. 2 vide registration No. 299272 on 13th September, 1974. The registration of the trademark in the name of Plaintiff No. 1 M/s Tiya Industries was renewed for some years but the registration discontinued thereafter. The trademark is stated to have been assigned by Plaintiff No. 2 to Plaintiff No. 1 in the year 1983 and is being used by Plaintiff No. 1 since the year 1981 in respect of steel and rubber parts for the cycle and auto industries mainly of steel balls, nuts bolts, rings, spoke wires and cycle parts etc. The Plaintiffs claim to be the exclusive owner of the trademark TIYA with logo on account of its continuous user since the year 1974. This is also the case of the Plaintiffs that they are selling their products under a distinctive label and trade dress, which constitute an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the copyright in that work vests in Plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 1 has obtained registration of this trademark in its favor since 19th July, 2004/28th April, 2006. The case of the Plaintiffs is that the Defendants having committed acts of infringement and passing of by adopting the trademark TIYA and using the trade dress, gets up, color combination and label identical to that of the Plaintiffs.

2. As regards jurisdiction of this Court, para 14 of the plaint, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

14. ...The Plaintiff came across the goods of the Defendants towards the end of March 2008 TIYA with Logo being imitating trademark and the Plaintiff inquired in the market at its level that the Defendant had started commercially using the trademark only recently and the Defendants were carrying their activities in a clandestine and deceitful manner....

Para 58 of the plaint reads as under:

58. That where the plaint schedule is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

3. The Defendants have contested the suit and have taken a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit since no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is also alleged that the business activities of the Defendants including the acts of manufacturing and marketing of their goods are confined/limited to the territories of the State of U.P. and no components/parts/goods are being supplied outside the State of U.P. It has also been alleged that at no given point of time, the Defendants have made any business transaction within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and they are not passing of their goods and business as that of the Plaintiffs within the jurisdiction of this Court. However, in para C of the preliminary objections, the Defendants have, inter alia, stated as under:

...The Defendants have been marketing and selling its goods throughout India since its inception in the year 1995. The Goods/products of the Defendants has been always available in Different markets of India in different parts and Defendants are well known among big dealers and distributors dealing in the said goods/products or allied or cognate goods. Accordingly, the Defendants enjoy goodwill and reputation throughout the country....

4. I.A. 13661/2009 has been filed by the Defendants under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try this suit as no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this Court.

5. I.A. 6505/2010 has been filed by the Plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. The Plaintiffs wants to amend para 58 of the plaint as also the prayer clause in the following manner:

Existing Paragraph

That where the plaint schedule is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court

Propo