Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
TIMES OF MONEY LIMITED - Plaintiff
Versus
REMITHOME CORPORATION & ANOTHER - Respondents
I.A. No.3037/2011 in CS (OS) No.456/2011
Decided On : August 13, 2012
UDRP - DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE - JURISDICTION - AGREED FORUM - PRINCIPAL OFFICE - CARRYING ON BUSINESS - LIMITATION - FOREIGN AWARD - ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION, INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - SECTION 20 CPC - EXPLANATION - PRINCIPAL OFFICE OR SOLE OFFICE - SUBORDINATE OFFICE - CAUSE OF ACTION - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a media company, filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages against the defendants, a US-based company and an Indian company, alleging infringement of its trademark and passing off. The defendants filed objections to the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the suit was barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiff contended that the court had jurisdiction based on the agreed forum principle under the UDRP policy and that the suit was not barred by limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Delhi court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings. The court found that the agreed forum under the UDRP policy was the place of the principal office of the registrar, which was in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. The court also found that the explanation to Section 20 of the CPC did not give a wide leeway to the plaintiff to sue or be sued solely at the place where the registered office was situated. The court further held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff was bonafidely prosecuting the objections before the wrong forum.
Issues: 1. Whether the Delhi court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings? 2. Whether the suit was barred by the law of limitation? 3. Whether the order passed by the administrative panel was a foreign award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Delhi court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings based on the following grounds: a) The agreed forum under the UDRP policy was the place of the principal office of the registrar, which was in Noida, Uttar Pradesh. b) The explanation to Section 20 of the CPC did not give a wide leeway to the plaintiff to sue or be sued solely at the place where the registered office was situated. c) No part of the cause of action had occurred in the Delhi Court. d) The defendant No. 1 is a foreign entity and has not consented to or acquiesced to the jurisdiction of Delhi court. 2. The court held that the suit was not barred by limitation as the plaintiff was bonafidely prosecuting the objections before the wrong forum. 3. The court did not decide whether the order passed by the administrative panel was a foreign award within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as it did not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the proceedings.
Final Decision: The court upheld the objection raised by the defendant No.1 and returned the plaint to be presented before the appropriate forum. The court also directed that the statement made by the defendant No.2 not to transfer the domain name shall continue further for a period of four weeks till the time the plaint is filed by the plaintiff before the appropriate jurisdiction.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs of injunction seeking following prayers :
“(a) a decree of declaration declaring that the plaintiff has right and legitimate interest in respect of the impugned domain names “www.remit2home.com” and “www.remit2home1.com” and the domain name registrations and use of such domain names by the plaintiff are not in “bad faith”;
(b) a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.2 from transferring the impugned domain names “www.remit2home.com” and “www.remit2home1.com” from the plaintiff to the defendant No.1;
(c) a decree for damages suffered by the plaintiff on account of the complaint filed by the defendant No.1 subject matter of the present suit and the impugned decision dated 21st February, 2008 passed thereon causing irreparable damages and injury to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff;
(d) pass any further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
2. By way of this order, I propose to decide the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and damages against the defendants.
3. Brief facts of the case leading up to filing of the present suit are enunciated as under :
a) The plaintiff belongs to the “Times Group” which started 7 decades ago with the business of publishing news papers, journals, magazines and books. The plaintiff has also entered the field of e-commerce and the primary business is to provide the money transfer facility to the people of different ethnic communities residing in USA to their home countries through the plaintiff’s internet services by using the plaintiff’s website namely www.remit2india.com for online money transfers. The remittance operations were commenced on 14th February, 2001 with one country (USA) and one currency (USD). Now includes 23 countries and 9 originating currencies.
b) Remit2india.com as a domain name was registered on 9th June, 2000 in favour of the plaintiff by Dynaserve Technologies Ltd. Canada, that is a Registrar accredited by ICANN. The plaintiff also adopted similarly structured domain names/trademarks namely remit2home.com and remithome1.com which were duly registered on 20th July, 2004 and 14th November, 2006 respectively, by ICANN accredited registrar namely Net 4 India Limited, the defendant No.2, which is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office in New Delhi.
c) The plaintiff has filed a number of trademark applications in India in order to protect is proprietary rights in the said marks. The list of pending and registered trademarks is as under :
Plaintiff’s Registered Trade Marks
S. No. Trade Mark Application No. Date of Application Class
1. REMIT2INDIA.CO.IN 991825 22.02.2001 9
2. REMIT2INDIA.CO.IN 991828 22.02.2001 16
3. REMIT2INDIA.COM 947591 14.8.2000 16
4. REMIT2INDIA.NET 947593 14.8.2000 16
5. REMIT2INDIA.ORG 947594 14.8.2000 16
6. REMIT2INDIA.WS 947595 14.8.2000 16
7. Remit2home.com Safe money transfers worldwide 1636107 31.12.2007 36
8. Remit2india.com Safe money transfers worldwide 1636113 31.12.2007 36
9. Remit2home.com Safe money transfers worldwide 1687590 15.05.2008 36
10. Remit2india.com The safe way to transfer money 01687591 15.05.2008 36
The above trade marks have been duly renewed, valid and subsisting.
4. The details of plaintiff’s pending applications for registration are given as under :
Plaintiff’s trade mark applications
S. No. Trade Mark Application No. Date of Application Class
1. REMITTOHOME.COM 1636104 31.12.07 36
2. REMIT2HOME.COM 1636105 31.12.07 36
3. REMIT2HOME-WAN.COM 1636106 31.12.07 36
4. REMIT2INDIA.ORG 1636108 31.12.07 36
5. REMIT2INDIA.WS 1636109 31.12.07 36
6. REMIT2INDIA.NE
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
