The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the cause of action and the location of subordinate offices in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the court in cases of trademark infringement and passing off.

Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. By this order, I proceed to deal with the submission of the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain or deal with the present suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the defendants are engaged in the common field of manufacturing and marketing of liquor, including country liquor. The plaintiff claims to be an old and established player in the field since 2007. The plaintiff claims to be occupying number one position having more than 35% market share in the country liquor segment in the State of Haryana.

3. The plaintiff states that in the year 2007, it applied for an excise license for manufacturing and marketing country liquor under the trademark/artistic label “MALTA” prefixed with the expression ‘Masti’. Since then, the plaintiff claims to be continuously and extensively selling the said product throughout the State of Haryana. The plaintiff claims to have made a total sale of Rs.1130 crores for the said product alone.

4. The plaintiff states that recently it learnt that defendant no.1, an authorized dealer of the plaintiffs product – who is situated in the State of Haryana, has in active connivance with the other defendant i.e. defendant no.2, illegally and unlawfully adopted a deceptively trademark/artistic label to that of the plaintiff. In para 25 of the plaint, the plaintiff, inter alia avers, that “the plaintiff …..….. is one of the largest selling country liquor in the State of Haryana and the defendants are also selling their liquor products in the said territory”. The cause of action pleaded in the plaint in para 35 is that the same arose for the first time in the third week of August 2015 when the plaintiff for the first time came across the product of the defendant.

5. The territorial jurisdiction of this Court is pleaded in para 36 of the plaint, which reads as follows:

“36. That this Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as the registered office of the manufacturer i.e. defendant no.2 is also situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. That apart all business decisions regarding the manufacture and marketing of the impugned product by the defendant no.2 is taken within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and all books of accounts and other business administration/decisions of the defendant no.2 are taken by it’s management within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and therefore this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit”.

6. Since the issue of lack of jurisdiction has been raised by the defendants, I proceed to first take notice of the submissions of learned counsel for the defendants. The submission of Mr. Kirpal, learned counsel for the defendants is that even on a plain reading of the plaint, it would be seen that the defendants are selling their country liquor in the State of Haryana. It is not even the plaintiffs case that the defendants are selling their country liquor with the impugned mark/label within the jurisdiction of this Court. The cause of action has entirely arisen within the State of Haryana, where the defendants products are being sold.

7. Mr. Kirpal submits that the plaintiff is claiming jurisdiction in this Court to try and entertain the suit merely on the premise that the registered office of defendant no.2 is situated in Delhi, i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court. He submits that merely because some business decisions regarding manufacture and marketing of the impugned product by defendant no.2 may have been taken by defendant no.2 at its registered office, i.e. within the jurisdiction of this Court, and the books of account are maintained at the registered office of defendant no.2 in Delhi, the same would not confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court to entertain and try the present suit.

8. In support of his plea, Mr. Kirpal has placed reliance on Section 20 CPC, which has been interpreted by the