The interpretation of 'carries on business' and 'personally works for gain' under Section 134(2) of the Trademarks Act determines territorial jurisdiction.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. None has been appearing for the defendants for the last three hearings. Even today none has appeared for the defendants. The defendants are proceeded ex-parte.

2. The present suit is filed seeking an order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dealing directly or indirectly in wallets, handbags, suitcases, luggage, purses, belts, footwear, jewellery or any other goods bearing the registered trademarks "LOUIS VUITTON", "LV" logo, Toile monogram pattern, Damier pattern and/or LV Flower pattern or any similar trademark amounting to an infringement of registered Trademarks Nos. 441451, 448229, 441452B, 448230, 448231, 448235, 448234, 441453B, 861145, 1335385 and 1335386. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

3. The plaintiff is said to be a company incorporated and existing under the laws of France, having its registered office at 2, rues du Pont-Neuf, 75001- Paris, France. The plaintiff derives its name from its founder, Mr.Louis Vuitton, who opened the first Louis Vuitton Store in Paris in the year 1854. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has built and maintained a reputation for producing a variety of lifestyle goods that are products of imaginative and distinctive designs etc.

4. The plaintiff is said to have a long association in India. As early as 1926 a tea case was created by the plaintiff for the Maharaja of Baroda. Till date the plaintiff's products have been, and are regularly used by celebrities and other members of the society in India. The trademarks of the plaintiff have tremendous goodwill and reputation in India. The plaintiff is said to have opened its first exclusive store in India in 2003 at the Oberoi Hotel in New Delhi. Currently there are four Louis Vuitton exclusive stores in India - one in New Delhi and one in Bangalore and two in Mumbai. These four boutiques are the only stores that sell authentic Louis Vuitton products in India. It is pleaded that the plaintiff rigorously invests in publicity and sponsoring of its brands every year. Advertisements have also been appearing in several Indian magazines. The communication and marketing expenditure of the plaintiff in India for the years 2008 to 2010 was exceeding Rs.31 crores. The sale in India during the period from 2007 to 2010 was exceeding Rs.213 crores.

5. The plaintiff has also statutory rights over several of its trademarks in India. The "LOUIS VUITTON' word mark, the "LV" logo, the Toile monogram pattern, the Damier pattern and the LV Flower Patterns are registered in India.

6. The defendants have shops located in Chandigarh, which are involved in the business of selling apparels and fashion accessories. It is pleaded that the defendants’ shops have been found to be dealing in counterfeit goods bearing various registered trademarks of the plaintiff. It was in August, 2013 during a market survey in Chandigarh that the infringing and counterfeiting activities of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were revealed. An independent investigator upon receipt of the plaintiff’s instructions sent one of his operators to Chandigarh on 31.08.2013 to investigate in the activities being undertaken at defendant No.1 shop. The investigator purchased a sample product which bears marks infringing the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit has been filed.

7. On 06.05.2014 this court appointed the two local commissioners to visit the shops of the defendants and make an inventory of all infringing products and take into custody all the goods including packaging etc. The reports of the local commissioners show that a large number of counterfeit products were detected by the local commissioners which were given on superdari to the defendants.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff states that 174 such infringing products were found by the local commissioners.

9. Defendants No.1, 2 and 3 to 5 have filed their written statements. The defendants primarily challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this court to adjudicate t