BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.04.2016, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the application of the respondents/defendants under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to ‘as CPC’). By virtue of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff was liable to be returned under Order 7 Rule 10 CPC as, according to him, this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit [CS (OS) No. 124/2015] which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

2. The suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as also the Copyright Act, 1957 seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trade mark and copyright. The suit was also one for injuncting the respondents/defendants, based upon a passing off action. Rendition of account etc. was also prayed for. It was claimed by the plaintiff/appellant that its trade mark GHARI/GHADI label is registered in Class 30 and also in other classes in India under various registrations which are still valid and subsisting under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is also stated in the plaint that the appellant/plaintiff had filed various other applications for registration of the trade mark GHARI/GHADI label in Classes 1 to 42 under the Trade Marks Act 1999 in India. It is also alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff’s artistic works in the said trade mark/label are also registered under the provisions of The Copyright Act, 1957. It is alleged that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the said trade mark/label in relation to the goods and business and, in view of the plaintiff’s proprietary rights, it has an exclusive right to the use thereof. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant No.1/respondent No.1 (Mr. Mukesh Sharma) is a lawyer and proprietor of a law firm – GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY – which is situated at 64, Kailashpuri, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in legal and advisory services in relation to intellectual property rights’ matters and that the word ‘GHARI’ is the most prominent part of the said firm’s name.

3. It is averred that by the adoption and use of the impugned trade mark – GHARI TRADEMARK COMPANY– in relation to the said services, the defendants are guilty of infringing the registered trade mark/label of the plaintiff/appellant. With regard to the date of knowledge, cause of action and territorial jurisdiction, the plaintiff made the following averments:-

“35. That in the month of 3rd Week of November 2014 the Plaintiff received the caveat petitions filed by the defendants in different District Courts, Delhi, whereby the defendant alleged to be engaged under the impugned trade name GHARI TRADE MARK COMPANY under the impugned services. The plaintiff's further inquiry revealed that the defendants have very recently started the impugned activity under the impugned trade name. The defendants' user thereof (if any) utmost would be clandestine, surreptitious, sporadic restricted, minimal and very recent and all making it very difficult to detect and verify the precise nature of the Defendants' activities. The defendant's impugned user, if any, is void-ab-initio.

36. That the cause of action for filing the present Suit has been detailed in the preceding Paras of the Plaint. The cause of action for filing the present Suit has arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the 3 rd Week of November 2014 the Plaintiff received the caveat petitions filed by the defendants in different District. Court, New Delhi, whereby the defendants alleged to be engaged under the impugned trade name GHARI TRADE MARK COMPANY under the impugned services. The defendants' are indulging in the impugned activity under the impugned trade name on a daily and continuous basis and as such the cause of action is a c