The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly invoking the jurisdiction of the court in trademark infringement cases, based on the place where the cause of action arises.

1. This suit was filed in November, 2014 seeking reliefs in the nature of permanent injunction against the violation and infringement of the rights of the plaintiffs in the trademark/logo/label/name/packaging style of ‘AQUAFINA’, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc., inter alia, alleging that the adoption and use by the defendants of a visually similar and phonetically identical trademark/name/logo/label/packaging ‘AQUALINA’ for identical products, viz., packaged drinking water is patently illegal and unlawful, mala fide as intended to ride on the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs’ well known trademark/name so as to gain wrongfully, it being designed to create confusion at the level of retailers, consumers and in the industry at the manufacturing level resulting in infringement and passing off, as also unfair competition and dilution of the rights of the plaintiffs, through tarnishment and blurring, in its trademarks “AQUAFINA and AQUAFINE (label)” registered in class 32 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 referring in this context to the marks:-

(i) AQUAFINA, registration no.774285, dated 29.04.1997;

(ii) registration no.1129381, dated 28.08.2002;

(iii) registration no.1308951, dated 15.09.2004; and

(iv) ‘AQUAFINE’ registration no.1202695, dated 30.05.2003.

2. As per the suit, the first plaintiff, Pepsi Co., Inc. is a Corporation existing under the laws of North Carolina, United States of America, having its principal office at 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, New York, USA, the suit having been signed, verified and instituted on its behalf by its authorized signatory. It is averred in the plaint that the second plaintiff, PepsiCo (India) Holdings Private Limited, is a fully owned subsidiary of the first plaintiff in India, it having been incorporated under the laws of India having its place of business at B-3, DLF Corporate Park, ‘S’ Block, Qutab Enclave, Phase III, Gurgaon-122002. The plaint mentions (in para 2) that the second plaintiff has its office “also at LGF – 54, World Trade Center, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110 001”, it having been signed, verified and presented on its behalf by its authorized signatory.

3. The plaintiffs claim to be renowned manufacturers and sellers of beverages/snack foods and other products including packaged drinking water sold and marketed under the registered trademark AQUAFINA. It is stated that the mark AQUAFINA is a unique word coined, invented and adopted by the plaintiffs in 1994, it having no obvious meaning, its mark/logo/label/packaging being distinctive and therefore, entitled to highest degree of protection. This product was statedly launched in India in 1999, being manufactured with a special reverse osmosis ultra purification system adopted by the plaintiffs, bottling plant having been set up at Roha in Raigarh district of Maharashtra. It is claimed that the trademark in question ‘AQUAFINA’ has gained enormous recognition and popularity, it having become extremely well-known, the mere mention of the brand associating it with the plaintiffs and their business, the label used having a blue coloured background with distinctive artistic device wedged between the first and the last letters ‘A’ of the word AQUAFINA.

4. The plaint alleges that the first defendant (M/s. Sagarnil Enterprise) is a company incorporated, having its office at Santra Para (Tetul tala), Amlani District, North 24 Parganas, Hasanabad-743426 and has engaged itself in the marketing of packaged drinking water under the impugned mark/label/logo AQUALINA, and that the second defendant (M/s. Water King), its address being as that of the first defendant, also “seems to be” a company involved in the manufacturing of packaged drinking water under the impugned mark/label/logo AQUALINA, the third defendant (Sagar Nil Santra) being the owner of the said companies.

5. Para 30 of the plaint summarizes the cause of action as under:-

“30. The cause of action in the present suit arose in August 2014 when t