The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases, considering the Defendants' activities related to the sale of counterfeit goods in determining the cause of action within the court's jurisdiction.

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 Court against M/s Shakthi Fashion and APB Designs for infringement of copyright, trademark, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants are indulging in selling counterfeit `BURBERRY' branded goods. The said goods are also promoted by the Defendants on the website, including on IndiaMart.

6. Prior to the filing of the suit before the Commercial Court, the Plaintiff lodged a complaint leading to a First Information Report (hereinafter, "FIR") in Bangalore for investigating the Defendants' activities. As per the FIR, a large volume of goods bearing the mark `BURBERRY', as well as thousands of labels and tags, shirts, etc. were seized.

7. Following the said seizure, the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction to protect the mark `BURBERRY'. In the plaint, the jurisdiction paragraph reads as under:

"42. That the cause of action for filing the present suit has been set out in preceding paras of the Plaint. The cause of action earlier arose in August, 2019 when upon receiving credible information, the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendants are manufacturing, soliciting, selling, marketing and trading the impugned goods under the Plaintiff's said trademark/label in the City of Bangalore, Kamataka. The cause of action arose again on 24.08.2019, whena Criminal Complaints under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 were filed against Defendant No. 1 & 2 through the representatives of the Plaintiff and subsequently the same culminated into FIR no. 0199/2019. The FIR No. 0199/2019 was lodged at Bomanhalli Police Station, Bangalore. The cause of action further arose when the search and seizure action was conducted on 24.08.2019 which saw the huge seizure of impugned counterfeit goods under the impugned trade Mark/label from the premises of Defendants. The cause of action has now arisen again in the second week of October 2020, when the Plaintiff was informed through the sources of markets and the trade that the representatives/concerned persons of the Defendants have started soliciting, networking about the impugned goods under the impugned trademark/label in markets of New Delhi. The cause of action also accrued when the Plaintiff caused an inquiry in the market, which revealed that the Defendants have not only started networking and soliciting but also procured orders from some dealers in New Delhi for supplying counterfeit goods under the impugned Trade Mark/Label. The cause of action further accrued when the Plaintiff learnt that there has been meticulous planning to sell the counterfeit goods in the markets of New Delhi under the impugned trademark/label in a clandestine and surreptitious manner The cause of action is still continuing and is accruing day-by-day and shall continue to so accrue ti