JUDGMENT.-This is a suit for a permanent injunction and other reliefs is respect of a registered trade mark. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trade mark “Gopal Tooth Powder”. The allegation is that the defendant who is carrying on business in Nakrekal Post, Nalgonda District, Andhra Pradesh is infringing the said trade mark. It is stated that the defendant is marketing tooth powder under the mark “Gobi Tooth Powder” with a label which is either similar to the plaintiff’s mark or a colourable imitation thereof. The defendant has raised several pleas and on the whole seven issues were settled for trial. But the first issue which is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Court was taken up as a preliminary issue.

2. Admittedly the defendant is carrying on business in tooth powder only in Anadhra Pradesh and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant’s goods entered the market here. It is not in dispute that the defendant is using the mark “Gobi Tooth Powder” and the offending label to market his goods in Andhra Pradesh. The contention on behalf of the defendant is that no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court inasmuch as the alleged infringement of the plaintiff’s mark is only in Andhra Pradesh and the defendant not being a person residing within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff has obtained leave to sue, wrongly representing to the Court that part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that part of the cause of action had in fact arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore the suit is maintainable here. One controversy is whether Clause 12 of the Letters Patent or section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies. It is under Clause 12 of the Letteers Patent the plaintiff applied for leave to sue and the same has been granted.

But Recording to the learned counsel (or the defendant, the suit for infringement of a registered trade mark is filed in this Court in its capacity as a District Court as defined under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that therefore, it is section. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure that is applicable and not Clause 12 of the Letters Patent This is not correct.

4. In section 2 (1) (e) of the Act it is stated that “District Court” has the meaning assigned to it in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the said Code the term “District Court” as such is not defined but the word “District” is defined as the local limits of the jurisdiction of a principal civil Court of original jurisdiction hereinafter called a “District Court”. It is significant to note that the same definition makes it clear that the local limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a High Court is also included in the definition of the word “District”. Therefore under the Code the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court is a district But that does not mean this Court becomes a District Court.

5. Under section 110 of the Act the High Court has framed Rules to regulate the proceedings under the Act. Rules 4 and 5 under Chapter II of the said Rules relate to suits. Rule 5 (1) says that all suits instituted in the High Court shall be governed by the Original Side Rules and 5 (ii) says that all suits instituted m the District Court shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the defendant says that the present suit which is ore for an alleged infringement of a registered trade mark is filed in this Court functioning as a District Court under the Act, that therefore, according to rule 5 (ii) referred above, only the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would be applicable and that the clauses in the letters patent have no application. But the learned couns

Click Here to Read the rest of this document