The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the court's reliance on the lack of evidence to support the respondent/plaintiff's claim of jurisdiction.

Veena Birbal, J.

1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 1st October, 2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, New Delhi whereby application of the respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was allowed and the interim order dated 9th September, 2009 has been confirmed.

2. Appellant herein is defendant no.1 before the learned trial court. Respondent herein is plaintiff before the learned trial court. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit under Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against appellant/defendant no.1 and one R.P. General Stores i.e. defendant no.2 before the trial court for the relief of permanent injunction retraining the appellant/defendant no.1 from using in any manner including by way of manufacturing, sale trade etc. of the impugned marks VOV, VO5 or similar or identical marks in relation to cosmetics, toiletries and personal care products such as hair sprays, shampoos, personal deodorants, hair tonic, etc. Prayer is also made for damages and/or rendition of accounts. Along with the aforesaid suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was also filed praying for the grant of ad interim injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the appellant/defendant no.1 from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising in India and exporting their products under the Trase Mark VOV which is phonetically similar to the respondent’s/plaintiff’s Trade Mark VO5 in relation to aforesaid products. The respondent/plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of wide range of cosmetic products such as hair sprays, shampoos, deodorants, hair and scalp conditioners, hair oil, hair tonic, and other allied products etc. It is alleged that in the year 1955, respondent/plaintiff through its predecessors adopted and started using the Trade Marks VO5 and V05 along with letters “ALBERTO”. With the passage of time, respondent/plaintiff also started using the Trade Mark VO in the course of trade in respect of its goods. The Trade Mark VO, VO5 is an essential, material and distinguishing feature of the said Trade Mark Label. As per respondent/plaintiff, it has acquired worldwide reputation. The respondent’s/plaintiff’s Trade Mark ALBERTO VO5, VO5 Label and V05 are duly registered in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The dates of registration are given in the plaint. It is alleged that in view of registration of its Trade Mark, respondent/plaintiff has exclusive rights thereto within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. The art works involved in the aforesaid Trade Mark/Label are original artistic work and the respondent/plaintiff holds copy right therein. It is alleged that art work involved in the respondent/plaintiff’s Trade Mark/Label VO5 along with the word ALBERTO is duly registered under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. It is alleged that respondent/plaintiff has already built up a globally valuable trade under the aforesaid Trade Mark/Label and has conducted handsome business there-under running into billions of dollars worldwide. The respondent/plaintiff has spent millions of dollars in advertising its products. It is alleged that respondent’s goods are known, recognized, demanded, sold and traded world over with reference to the said Trade Mark/Label. It is alleged that respondent’s/plaintiff’s goods under the aforesaid Trade mark/Label are available in Delhi including New Delhi and other parts of the country through its authorized importer and distributor M/s J.L. Morison (India) Ltd., “Crystal”, 79, Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018 also at 404, Rohit House 3 Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi 1100001.

3. It is alleged that the respondent/plaintiff is a global leader in the aforesaid goods and business. M/s Alberto Culver Company is the predecessor-in-title of the respondent/plaintiff. The said predecessor has assigned all rights, titles and interests in the aforesaid trade mark