The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of territorial jurisdiction in online trade, the protection of trademarks against deceptive use, and the potential for confusion and deception in the public due to infringing trademarks.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present appeal has been filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 43(1)(r) and Section 151 CPC on behalf of the appellant assailing judgment dated 26.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the appellant/plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, registered as IA No.8000/2021 in CS(COMM) 316/2021, was dismissed.

2. The appellant, in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, passing off, dilution and tarnishing of trademarks and copyrights etc., has sought ad-interim injunction against the respondents/defendants from using its registered trademark 'TATA' for business purposes. It is generally alleged by the appellant in the suit that the respondents are businesses registered in the United Kingdom and the United States, which are using its trademark for doing online trading in cryptocurrency through their website(s) 'www.tatabonus.com' and 'www.hakunamatata.finance'. It is further alleged that the websites are accessible in India and are in fact accessed by visitors from Delhi on daily basis.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court ran into the question of territorial jurisdiction at the threshold itself and did not agree with the appellant that Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction over the respondents who are registered and located overseas. Curiously, the learned Single Judge caveated his decision by characterising it as 'a prima facie opinion', agreed to register and proceed with the suit in Delhi, yet declined to grant ad-interim injunction, when he otherwise did not doubt the appellant's intellectual property rights in the trademark 'TATA' vis-a-vis the respondents. According to the learned Single Judge, extra-territorial reach of the jurisdiction of the Court over foreign-seated respondents was an issue, and he thus declined the prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction.

4. The facts of the case, as emerge from the records, are that the appellant was incorporated in the year 1917. Its trade name/trademark 'TATA', stated to have been derived from the surname of its founder-Shri Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, is reportedly in continuous and consistent use since then. Appellant is the holding company of TATA Group of Companies, and claims to be the owner and registered proprietor of the trademark 'TATA', and also its various permutations and combinations. The appellant, and its group companies, claim to be India's largest private-sector employer. The group has presence across number of sectors namely, textiles, iron and steel, power, chemicals, hotels and automobile, computers and computer software, electronics, beverages, telecommunications, financial services, mutual funds, insurance, broadcasting, aerospace and retail, etc. The appellant has particularly mentioned about its business of financial services, which includes digital currency, blockchain technologies, etc.

5. The appellant claims that as on March 31, 2021, the market capitalisation of 29 publicly-listed Tata Companies was about Rs.17,80,000 crores and they employed 800,000 people worldwide. It is the appellant's case that on account of the distinctive nature, the name and the trademark 'TATA' have acquired excellent reputation and exclusively denote the conglomeration of Tata companies, also known as 'House of TATA'. As such, the mark 'TATA' and other 'TATA' formative marks are well-known marks, which have also been so acknowledged by the Courts. According to the appellant, the word 'TATA' exudes quality and trust that the group is known for both within the country and abroad. In short, there are extensive pleadings in the plaint highlighting the reputation, goodwill and recognition of the appellant's trademarks in India. Even otherwise, we do not have any reason to doubt the pre-eminence of the trademarks of the appellant in India.

6. As pleaded in the