The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'carries on business' under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to include carrying on business through an agent or licensee at a particular place.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The plaintiff no. 1 Karan's Gurukul Classes, a partnership of plaintiffs no. 2 & 3 Hemant Kumar and Manish Kumar, has sued the defendant no. 1 Gurukul Classes IIT Division, a partnership of defendants no. 2 & 3 Pradip Giri and Dipak Giri, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of the device trade mark GURUKUL CLASSES and passing off by the defendants of their same business as that of the plaintiffs by adopting the mark GURUKUL CLASSES IIT DIVISION and for ancillary reliefs.

2. The suit was entertained, though no ex-parte ad interim injunction sought granted.

3. Pleadings have been completed.

4. The suit is ripe for framing of issues and for hearing of (i) application of the plaintiffs for interim relief; (ii) application of the defendants for summary dismissal of the suit under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as applicable to Commercial Suits and (iii) application of the defendants under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

5. In accordance with the dicta of the Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs. P.M. Diesels Ltd. (2018) 2 SCC 112, before consideration of the application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, issues have to be framed.

6. The counsel for the defendants has handed over proposed issues which are taken on record.

7. The counsel for the plaintiffs has not proposed any issues and the counsels have been heard on the proposed issues of the defendants.

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:

(i) Whether the registrations obtained by the plaintiffs bearing Nos.1399868 in Class 41, 3498632 in Class 41, 3498623 in Class 42 and 3498626 in Class 41 are invalid and liable to be rectified on the grounds pleaded in the written statement? OPD

(ii) Whether this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPP

(iii) Whether the use of the mark GURUKUL CLASSES IIT DIVISION by the defendants amounts to infringement? OPP

(iv) Whether plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs claimed on account of laches, acquiescence and waiver? OPD

(v) Whether the discretion implicit in the grant of relief of injunction is not to be exercised in favour of the plaintiffs for the reasons pleaded in the written statement? OPD

(vi) If the above issues are decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, to what relief, if any, is the plaintiffs entitled to and from which of the defendants? OPP

(vii) Relief.

9. No other issue arises or is pressed.

10. While hearing the counsels on framing of issues, it was enquired from the counsel for the defendants, why the issue as to territorial jurisdiction of this Court should be framed and the counsels were heard thereon.

11. On such hearing it transpires that as far as the issue no. (ii) above qua territorial jurisdiction is concerned, the same does not require any evidence.

12. The same is thus ordered to be treated as a preliminary issue and with consent, the counsels have been heard thereon.

13. The plaintiffs have invoked the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by pleading in para no. 52 of the plaint as under:

"52. The Plaintiffs to the present Civil Suit Work for Gain at New Delhi through its Head Office. The Section-134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 vests the Territorial Jurisdiction to try, decide, adjudicate & entertain the present Civil Suit within the Territorial Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi."

14. The counsel for the defendants has drawn attention to para no. 3 of the preliminary objections in the written statement of the defendants as under:

"3. At the outset, it is submitted that the present suit is liable to be dismissed as the Hon'ble Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs are conscious of the fact that the Defendants are residents of Aurangabad and are carrying on their business at Railway Station Road, First Floor, Sarda Arcade, above Sy