SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV NARULA
Copenhagen Hospitality and Retails – Appellant
Versus
A.R. Impex – Respondent


Table of Content
1. jurisdiction in infringement suits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding territorial jurisdiction. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court's analysis of jurisdiction principles. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. rejection of jurisdiction objection. (Para 11)
5. closure of trial phase and scheduling. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

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 ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top