V. Kameswar Rao, J.

IA 18636 of 2013

1. By this order, I will decide the present application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and the plea of the defendant that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction, to entertain this suit.

2. The Suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from infringing/passing off the trade mark; copyright of the plaintiff, unfair competition; damages and delivery up etc.

3. Suffice to state that the trademark of the plaintiff is ‘Officers Choice’, whereas the defendant’s is ‘regular choice’.

4. According to the plaintiff, the trade mark “Officer’s Choice” was coined and adopted during the year 1988 by the predecessor in rights, title and interest of the plaintiff. As per the demerger, transfer and vesting of the liquor business of M/s. BDA Pvt. Ltd with the plaintiff on a going concern basis vide Composite Scheme of Arrangement duly approved by order of the High Court, Bombay dated 23rd February, 2007, the plaintiff herein, became the proprietor of the trade mark “Officer’s Choice” in several classes. The plaintiffs products which are sold throughout India and overseas under the trade mark and label "Officer's Choice" have acquired an enviable reputation and goodwill, as a result of its excellent quality, distinctive packaging and characteristics namely, palatable taste, flavour, blending etc. It is considered as one of the largest selling whiskies' in India and the plaintiff has been incurring extensive expenditure towards promotional campaigns in order to promote and publicize its product under the mark "Officer's Choice". It is averred that the plaintiff is registered proprietor of the trade mark "Officer's Choice" in various classes as set out herein under:    

5. The aforesaid registrations in the name of the plaintiff are valid and subsisting having been duly renewed as required under law. It is averred that the "Officer's Choice" word mark has the word 'Choice' disclaimed. However the plaintiff has acquired common law trade mark rights in the overall combination by virtue of exclusive and extensive use of the said mark since 1988 and hence, the plaintiff has proprietary rights in the combination of the said words which is unique and has acquired a secondary meaning by virtue of continuous and extensive use and promotion ever since it was first adopted. It is averred that apart from "Officer's Choice", the plaintiff has coined, used and is also the registered proprietor of a series of 'Officer' formative marks which are used and associated with the plaintiff and/or are considered as emanating from the p