VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. This application has been moved by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC to seek the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for filing the same in the proper court having jurisdiction, on the premise that this court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copy Right Act, 1957 alleging infringement of the plaintiffs registered trademark as well as infringement of the plaintiffs copyright, and passing off. The plaintiff also seeks rendition of accounts etc. from the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff M/s. RSPL Limited, which has its registered office at Kanpur and corporate office at Pitampura, New Delhi is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of soaps and detergents. The plaintiff claims to have honestly and bonafidely adopted the trademark GHARI/WATCH/ CLOCK since 1975. The plaintiffs mark GHARI label is registered with the Registrar of Trademarks in several classes. Several applications of the plaintiff for registration of the trademark GHARI label are also stated to be pending.

3. The plaintiff claims to hold a copyright in the original art work in GHARI label, which is also stated to be registered. The plaintiff claims that its mark/ label is well known. In para 26 of the plaint, the plaintiff avers as follows:-

“26. That to the best of knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant no.1 namely Mr. Mukesh Sharma is the lawyer and proprietor of his law firm namely GHARI TRADE MARK COMPANY (referred to as the impugned trade name) situated at 64, Kailashpuri, Bulandshahar (U.P.) and is engaged in providing legal and advisory services in relation to IPR matters (referred to as the impugned services). The word/name GHARI is the most important part of the impugned trade name”.

(emphasis supplied)

4. The plaintiff claims that by adopting the firm name GHARI TRADE MARK COMPANY, the defendant is infringing the plaintiffs trademark. In para 35 of the plaint, the plaintiff states that in the third week of November 201, the plaintiff received the caveat petition filed by the defendant in different district courts at Delhi. The plaintiff claims in para 37 of the plaint that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as:

“…. The defendants are committing the impugned acts within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court by conducting, soliciting, rendering the impugned services within the impugned trade name within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The plaintiff is having its corporate office at 3rd Floor, C-1, 2 and 3, Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur District Centre, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034 which is nerve center of the plaintiff’s said business and from where the plaintiff has been carrying on with its important aspects of its business including marketing, distribution and finance and is carrying on its said goods and business under the said trademark/ label within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court .…”

(emphasis supplied)

5. The submission of counsel for the defendant/applicant is that this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. This submission is premised on the fact that the plaintiffs registered office is situated at Kanpur. Though the corporate office of the plaintiff is situated at New Delhi - within the jurisdiction of this court, the applicant states that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court. Consequently, it is stated that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the suit in the light of judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Performing Right Society v. Sanjay Walia & Ors., (2015) 10 SCC 161.

6. The submission of Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff