JUDGMENT

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. The learned single Judge has by an order dated 11.8.2008 referred for the decision of the Division Bench of this Court questions concerning the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present suit.

2. The factual background in which the questions arise requires to be briefly recapitulated. A peculiar feature of the present suit which is an action for passing of is that neither the plaintiff nor the Defendants is located within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff is a company having its registered office at Singapore whereas the Defendants 1 and 2 are at Hyderabad. Defendant no. 1 is the promoter of the Defendant no. 2 company.

The Case of the Plaintiff

3. The Plaintiff claims that it is part of a group of companies involved in the hospitality business. Since 1994 it adopted and used the word mark 'Banyan Tree' and also the banyan tree device. It is claimed that on the account of the extensive and continuous use by the Plaintiff of the said mark and device in relation to its business, they have acquired secondary meaning, have become highly distinctive and have come to be associated with the Plaintiff and its sister concer