Puma Se vs D.K. Arora

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Puma Se – Appellant
Versus
D.K. Arora – Respondent

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction and alleged trademark infringement (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. review of earlier decisions regarding jurisdiction (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. analysis of territorial jurisdiction under tm act (Para 7 , 8)
4. arguments on merits of the case and jurisdiction (Para 9 , 10)
5. law governing dismissal of plaint under order vii rule 10 (Para 11 , 12 , 14)
6. court’s error in reviewing earlier consent orders (Para 13 , 15 , 18)
7. final decision is a reversal due to error in jurisdiction determination (Para 23 , 24 , 26)

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.07.2022, passed by the learned Commercial Court, allowing the application filed by the respondent/defendant, under Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') and returning the plaint; the appellant/plaintiff has filed the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. The appellant, which is a company based in Germany, had filed the suit alleging that the respondent is manufacturing and selling counterfeit products under its well-known label, .

3. The appellant/plaintiff in the suit, sought various reliefs including permanent injunction, restraining the re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

DELHI HIGH COURTVIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJANPuma Se – AppellantVersusD.K. Arora – Respondent

DELHI HIGH COURT
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Puma Se – Appellant
Versus
D.K. Arora – Respondent