Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Shakthi Fashion – Appellant
Versus
Burberry Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 21st December, 2021 passed by the ld. Commercial Court concerning the application filed by the Petitioners/Defendants (hereinafter, "Defendant") under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The application was dismissed by the ld. Commercial Court.
3. The case of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, "Plaintiff") is that the Plaintiff is the owner of the mark `BURBERRY' and is in the business of selling luxury garments across the world and in India. The mark is registered in India under trademark application no. 905511.
4. The Plaintiff is involved in manufacture, distribution, sale of ready to wear apparels, clothing, shoes, handbags, cosmetics, fragrances, sunglasses, footwear, bags, leather goods, belts, etc. The Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the marks `BURBERRY', `BURBERRY EQUESTRIAN KNIGHT LOGO', `CHECK' device and various `BURBERRY' formative trademarks/labels.
5. The Plaintiff preferred a suit CS(COMM) 526/20, before the Commercial Co
Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases requires proof of actual sales in the jurisdiction, not mere trap transactions, supported by relevant documentation.
Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.
Civil Law - Return of plaint - Territorial jurisdiction - It is not possible to reach at a conclusion that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court on a mere re....
Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.
Application under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC is to be decided on a demurrer by accepting all statements made in plaint to be true.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere accessibility of a website in a particular jurisdiction does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction, and real commercial t....
Territorial jurisdiction is determined by actual business activities within the jurisdiction, reaffirming that trademark registration does not confer such jurisdiction.
A part of the cause of action can arise in a court's jurisdiction even if services are provided online, contingent on the nature of the services advertised.
The central legal point established is that for territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, the plaintiff's principal place of business and the cause of action are determina....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
