Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

I.A. 3044/2021 (Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC by Defendant No. 1)

1. By way of present application filed under Order VII Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, Defendant No. 1 has objected to the competence of this Court to entertain the present suit for want of territorial jurisdiction and has consequently prayed for return of the Plaint.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff inter-alia, seeking relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringement and passing off of its trade mark and design. Additionally, Plaintiff has prayed for rendition of accounts from the Defendants.

3. The Plaintiff claims to be in the business of manufacturing, distribution and marketing/selling of electrical goods which it sells under the registered trade mark `V-GUARD' and/or its formative variants. It is averred that while Defendant No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s N-Guard Electronic Industries having its registered office in Bengaluru, Karnataka, Defendant No. 2 provides web designing services to Defendant No. 1.

4. This Court, vide order dated 18.01.2021, had restrained the Defendants by way of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction order from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in offending products i.e., machines, electronic, electrical parts and fittings etc. under the impugned mark `N-GUARD'/domain name `www.nguard.in' or any other mark/trade name/trade dress/domain name which are similar to plaintiff's registered trade mark `V-GUARD'.

5. The Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as `Defendant') has questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The objections to the jurisdiction are pleaded in the captioned Interim Application as well as in the written statement filed by the Defendant factually denying the averments made in the Plaint. It is inter-alia contended by the Defendant that:

(a) Defendant is not carrying on business at New Delhi,

(b) In the plaint, Plaintiff has admitted that while its registered office is in Kerala, Defendant's registered office is in Karnataka;

(c) Defendant's website is not interactive and that no products can be purchased from its website,

(d) the sale relied upon by the Plaintiff in the plaint was neither made by the Defendant nor by his authorised agent. According to the Defendant, it does not sell its products in Delhi and that the vendor from whom the alleged offending product was purchased has no association with the Defendant,

(e) a one-off self-generated sale by the Plaintiff from an unrelated vendor on a third party marketplace website amazon.in, is not adequate to attract the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Defendant, in support of his submissions, has relied upon the decisions in Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay v. Prasad Trading Company, reported as (1991) 4 SCC 270, Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, reported as (2006) 9 SCC 41, Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., reported as 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1238 (hereinafter referred to as IPRS (Delhi), Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia and Anr., reported as (2015) 10 SCC 161 (hereinafter referred to as IPRS (SC), Banyan Tree Holding (P.) Limited v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 (DB).

7. Per contra, Plaintiff has invoked Section 20 CPC to claim jurisdiction of this Court. To summarise, as per the averments made in the plaint,