JUDGMENT :

A.K. Sikri, J.

IA No. 258/06

1. Defendant No.1 has moved this application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC (which is essentially an application under Order 7, Rule 10 CPC) read with Section 151 thereof for return/rejection of the plaint on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. In support, recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dhodha House Vs. S.K. Maingi, AIR 2006 SC 730 is cited.

2. From the perusal of the plaint it is clear that the plaintiff has claimed that this Court has the jurisdiction:

(i) In view of the fact that the application for registration of the trade mark is filed in the Trade Mark Registry in Delhi and is advertised in Delhi;

(ii) In view of the provisions of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999; and

(iii) In view of the fact that the defendant is selling the goods within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

3. It is conceded by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi (supra), the plaintiff cannot claim the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of first two grounds. Therefore, it is the third ground only