In a suit for passing off of trademark, the pleadings must contain material facts that establish a cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Vague and casual statements, without specific details or particulars, are insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to “the plaintiff”) assailing the order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the District Judge, District Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 31/2018, returning the plaint filed for passing off the Trade Mark action on the ground of having no territorial jurisdiction.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties, perused the impugned order as well as plaint and other material placed before this Court.

3. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the present suit under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground of passing off action, which falls within Section 134 (1) (c) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 (hereinafter referred to “the Act of 1999”). The plaintiff has pleaded that since 10.04.2008, the plaintiff using Trade Mark “Lal Qila” for the business of Paint Brush etc. Undisputedly, the plaintiff has no registration of Trade Mark “Lal Qila.” In Para No. 21 of the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded in respect of accrual of cause of action for passing off action in the following manner:

^^;g fd oknh dks Áfroknh ds mDr d`R; dh lwpuk ,oa tkudkjh fnukad 13-07-2015 dks ÁkIr gqbZ fd Áfroknh }kjk oknh ds VªsMekdZ dh udy dj ^^yky fdyk** ds uke ls jax isUV djus dh czq'k t;iqj egkuxj ds nqdkunkjksa ds ek/;e ls cspuk ÁkjEHk fd;k gS rFkk Áfroknh }kjk bu NksVs&NksVs nqdkunkjksa dks fcy@bUoksbZl vkfn tkjh ugha dh tkrh gS] blfy, bu nqdkunkjksa }kjk Hkh Áfroknh ds eky dk dksbZ fcy@bUoksbZl tkjh ugha fd;k tkrk gS] Áfroknh ds }kjk t;iqj egkuxj esa eky cspus ds dkj.k mDr okn dks ÁLrqr djus dk okn dkj.k mRiUu gqvk gS] tks vHkh rd yxkrkj cnLrwj fujUrj tkjh gSA**

4. In support of aforesaid averments, no other particulars have been placed on record.

5. Respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to “the defendant”), after service of notice, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 10 and 11 CPC read with Section 20 CPC and disputed the aforesaid pleadings and raised an objection that no jurisdiction has accrued in the Jaipur District and therefore, the plaintiff’s suit is not liable to be entertained in view of Section 20 CPC. For ready reference relevant portion of the application filed by the defendant is as under:

^^¼v½ ;g fd oknh }kjk vius okni= dh en la[;k 21 esa okn dkj.k ds lEcU/k esa ;g o.kZu fd;k gS fd ^^oknh dks Áfroknh ds mDr d`R; dh lwpuk ,oa tkudkjh fnukad 13-07-2015 dks ÁkIr gqbZ fd Áfroknh }kjk oknh ds VªsMekdZ dh udy dj ^^yky fdyk** ds uke ls jax jksxu djus dh czq'k t;iqj egkuxj ds nqdkunkjksa ds ek/;e ls cspuk ÁkjEHk fd;k gS rFkk Áfroknh }kjk bu NksVs&NksVs nqdkunkjksa dks fcy@bUoksbZl vkfn tkjh ugha dh tkrh gS] blfy, bu nqdkunkjksa }kjk Hkh Áfroknh ds eky dk dksbZ fcy@bUoksbZl tkjh ugha fd;k tkrk gS] Áfroknh ds }kjk t;iqj egkuxj esa eky cspus ds dkj.k mDr okn dks ÁLrqr djus dk okn dkj.k mRiUu gqvk gS] tks vHkh rd yxkrkj cnLrwj fujUrj tkjh gSA** ijUrq oknh }kjk ,slk dksbZ rF; mDr okni= esa of.kZr ugha fd;k gS fd ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd Áfroknh t;iqj egkuxj dk fuoklh gks ;k vius ykHk gsrq dksbZ eky t;iqj egkuxj esa foØ; dj jgk gks vkSj uk gh fdlh ,slh nqdku] ÝsUokbZlh ;k ,tsUV dks i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gksrk gks fd Áfroknh }kjk t;iqj egkuxj esa O;kikfjd ykHk gsrq O;kikj fd;k jgk gSA bl Ádkj oknh dk okn /kkjk 20 ds vkKkid Áko/kkuksa ds foijhr gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA**

6. The trial court, vide impugned order dated 16.08.2022, adverting to provisions of Section 134 (1) (c) of the Act of 1999 and Section 20 CPC as also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia and Another, (2015) 10 SCC 161, has recorded a fact finding that merely on the basis of averments of plaint as made in Para No. 21, it may not be held that any cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff in Jaipur. The plaintiff has neither made the specific and clear averments nor has supported his averments by any documents. For ready