The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of territorial jurisdiction in a civil suit for passing off action of trademark and copyright.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant civil revision petition has been preferred by petitioner-defendant under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 10.01.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.52/2005, dismissing an application dated 07.05.2005 filed by the petitioner-defendant, to reject the plaint or in alternative to return the plaint of respondent-plaintiff, for presentation to the appropriate Court, having territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. The fundamental and preliminary objection raised by the petitioner-defendant by way of filing the present application is that the civil suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for declaration, permanent & perpetual injunction, for passing off action of trade-mark before the district Court at Jaipur, does not disclose accrual of cause of action within Jaipur City and as such, the district Court at Jaipur does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. Hence, the suit either be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC or in alternative be returned to the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, for presentation before the appropriate Court, having territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit i.e. the District Court at Rajkot, Gujrat, where petitioner-defendant carries on business of hotel & resort as also its registered office is situated.

2. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the record made available before this Court, including the plaint filed by respondent-plaintiff.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant has argued that the respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit against the petitioner-defendant before the district Court of Jaipur City, in the year 2005, stating inter alia that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of hotels & resorts under the trademark/trade-name of “Chokhi Dhani” at Jaipur and this trade-name “Chokhi Dhani” was coined and invented in the year 1990 and in order to use and protect this trade-name exclusively, the plaintiff-Company has filed an application for registration of trademark “Chokhi Dhani” in Class 30, Schedule 4 of the Trade And Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, in respect of hotels & resorts under provisions of the Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, on 11.01.2002, bearing registration No.1073208 before the Registrar of the Trade Marks. The application for seeking registration of such trademark is pending. The details of various applications, allegedly filed by the plaintiff for seeking registration of trademark “Chokhi Dhani” in various classes, have been indicated in Para No.4 of the plaint. It has also been pleaded that the plaintiff’s star category hotels & resorts in the trade-name of “Chokhi Dhani” are situated at various places in India.

In Para No.8 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that the defendant seems to be engaged in the business of hotels & resorts, having its business place at the address mentioned above i.e. at Rajkot, Gujrat as indicated in the cause-title and address of the defendant in the plaint.

In Para No.9 of the plaint, it has been pleaded that while looking into the tourist’s website, the plaintiff was clicked with the defendant’s website and came to know that the defendant has started hotels & resorts under the trade-name of “Chouki Dhani” along with copyright subsists in its logo.

It has been pleaded that the trade-name used by defendant i.e. “Chouki Dhani” for its hotels & resorts business at Rajkot, is phonetically and deceptively similar to the trade-name/trademark of the plaintiff i.e. “Chokhi Dhani” and since plaintiff has coined and invented this trademark as also is a prior user, the defendant is passing off using the trade-name of “Chouki Dhani”, which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark.

Thus, the plaintiff filed present civil suit for declaration, permanent & perpetual injunction, for passing off action of its trademark, against the defendant on 28.03.2005.

4. I