Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement suits can be established based on alleged marketing actions in the jurisdiction, upheld by assuming the truth of the plaint's claims pending trial.

ORDER

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

I.A. 8371/2021 (u/O VII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for return of plaint)

1. By way of the instant application, Defendant No. 1 seeks return of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark and passing off; infringement of copyright, trade dress, breach of confidentiality; misappropriation of trade secrets, etc.

3. At the outset, it is noted that Defendant No. 1 is based in Ahmedabad, Defendant No. 2 in Chandigarh, and Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in Punjab. The Plaintiff is based in Chandigarh.

4. The relevant paragraphs in the plaint delineating how Courts in Delhi are seized of territorial jurisdiction to try the matter, read as under:

"CAUSE OF ACTION:

61. The cause of action accrued in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on April 15, 2021, when the Plaintiffs learnt that the Defendant No. 1 illegally adopted a similar name and look-alike logo for its self-owned and franchised outlets in Ahmedabad with the assistance and connivance of the Defendant No. 2 and the Defendant No. 2 joined the business of Defendant No. 1. (...) It again arose in the second week of May, 2021 when the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 approached Plaintiff No. 1's existing franchise partners in Delhi, Maharashtra and Bangalore seeking collaboration with them to operate the Master Franchise of LA MILANO PIZZERIA outlets in their respective territories also to persuade their sub-franchise owners to convert their existing LA PINO'Z PIZZA franchise to LA MILANO PIZZERIA. (...)

JURISDICTION:

62. (...) The cause of action for filing the present suit has partly arisen in Delhi, as the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have approached the Plaintiffs' Master Franchise in Delhi for converting them to the Defendant No. 1's Master Franchise. Plaintiffs have great apprehension that the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 will expand its infringing activities in Delhi by operating self-owned/franchised outlets of LA MILANO PIZZERIA/LA MILANO PIZZA, which will cause extreme harm to the Plaintiffs' business and goodwill and reputation as the Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3 operates almost 12 outlets in Delhi itself. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are promoting and advertising their restaurant services on social media platform Facebook, Instagram, Google, Zomato etc. misusing the Plaintiffs' official accounts, which are accessible all over the country including in Delhi. The Plaintiffs are carrying on their business under the brand name LA PINO'Z PIZZA in Delhi through their Master Franchise and various sub-franchise outlets. Hence, this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate the present suit under Section 20 (c) of Code of Civil Procedure as the cause of action has arisen in Delhi. The present suit is a commercial suit, within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015." [emphasis added]

Contentions of the parties:

5. The Applicant/Defendant No. 1 seeks the return of the plaint on the following grounds:

a. The Defendant No. 1 has its registered office in Ahmedabad and is operating its business from the said jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs have also admitted that they have been operating in Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat as per Para 31 and 32 of the Plaint.

b. That various claims of the Plaintiffs regarding the alleged violation of the impugned rights as well as alleged confusion caused in the market relate to Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat and therefore, if at all there was any cause of action in favour of the Plaint