The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere apprehension of the plaintiff or its perception of a threat of infringement by the defendants within the local limits of the court is sufficient to attract the court's jurisdiction in a quia timet action.

JUDGMENT :

Jayant Nath, J.

This hearing is conducted through video conferencing.

IA No. 11873/2020

1. This application is filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rules 10 and 11 CPC praying that the plaint be rejected for want of cause of action as the same neither accrued nor arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants within the territorial jurisdiction of this court.

2. It is pleaded in the application that the plaintiff has its office at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. The defendants have their corporate office at Mehsana, Gujarat. None of the parties has their registered office within the territorial jurisdiction of this court and no part of cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court.

3. The defendant carries on its business at Ahmadabad and has not made any sales of medicines under the alleged trademark 'ZACLEAR' within the jurisdiction of this court. It is further stated that the plaintiff carries its business at Ahmadabad. Defendant No. 2 has served the plaintiff during his employment at Ahmedabad. Hence, the present application.

4. I have heard learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants.

5. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the judgments of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Bristol Myers Squibb Company & Anr. vs. V.C. Bhutada & Ors.', and of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Shilpa Medicare Limited vs. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company & Ors. to plead that a perusal of the plaint would show that clear averments are made that the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants would be selling products in Delhi. Hence the suit is in the nature of a quia timet action.

6. Learned counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, relies upon a judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of M/s. Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. R.K. Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., IA. No. 18636/2013 in CS(OS) 2266/2013, decided on 27.07.2016.

7. A perusal of the plaint filed by the plaintiff shows that the averments regarding territorial jurisdiction of this court are made in paras 39 to 45 of the plaint. The same are read as follows:

"39. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit on account of the fact that the Plaintiff is carrying on business in Delhi through its branch office. It is also submitted that Delhi has been one of the largest markets for sale and distribution of the Plaintiff's products. It is, thus, the reasonable apprehension of the Plaintiff that the Defendants would undoubtedly be interested in exploring this market for sale of their goods under the Impugned Mark shortly. The threat of Defendants attempting to ride off the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff looms large as the Defendant No. 2 had been employed with the Plaintiff for nearly 12 years in the Sales and Marketing Department and is well aware of the focus markets and brand strategies of the Plaintiff. His plans, therefore, to launch ZACLEAR, a brand deceptively similar to ZYCLEAR, within 4 months of quitting the Plaintiff's employment, reeks of dubious designs and manifestly mala-fide and calculated to deceive the public and members of trade.

40. This Hon'ble Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit under Section 20 CPC, 1908 because the Defendants have been advertising and inviting the enquiries and trade interest through its website for the sale of commercial quantities and the website www.unizagroup.com which is accessible from any part of the world including Delhi for placing orders and/or enquiries which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. Printouts from the website are being filed in the present proceedings.

41. The Defendants are engaged in the marketing and sale of several pharmaceutical products within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and it is apprehended that the Defendants are likely to launch, market and sell offending products under dece