Held appellant has a cause of action at Madras.

C. SHIVAPPA, J.

The appellant herein has filed CS No. of 1996, SR Nos. 6107 to 6110 along with Application No. 1215 1996 under Clause 12 of Letters Patent for leave to sue before this Court on account of substantial part of cause of action having arisen within the jurisdiction of this court, since the appropriate office of Trade Mark Registry with respect to the appellant's registered trade mark is in Madras an secondly, Eenadu carrying respondent's use of impugned trade mark in the course of its advertisement is circulated in the city of Madras. The order refusing leave to sue is impugned in this appeal.

2. A memo has been filed by the respondent stating that the some of their business has been changed subsequently and there is no infringement as alleged and as such, there is no cause of action. The learned senior counsel Mr. U. N. R. Rao, appearing for the appellant submitted that the similar question often arises for consideration and the learned Judge has observed that it is desirable to settle the issue authoritatively by a decision of the Division Bench of this Court and, hence, insisted for determination of the questions involved in this appeal

3. The question for consideration are,

(i) whether the publication in Eenadu Daily emanating from Hyderabad and widely circulated in the city of Madras amounts to infringement of the appellant's trade mark ? and

(ii) whether the cause of action arose wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of this court on account of the trade mark registered at the Madras Registry ?

4. In order to determine these questions, few facts are necessary and they are set out hereunder,

"The appellant is the registered proprietor of a number of 'registered trade marks including the trade mark "Ramu" for hosiery, bearing No. 332829 in Class 25 with effect from 27-7-1978. The appellant has been using the trade mark "Ramu" on their hosieries continuously and extensively from 1972. By virtue of registration and its extensive use since 1972, the appellant has built up commercial goodwill on the trade mark "Ramu" for hosieries. The defendant in "Eenadu" Daily emanating from Hyderabad and widely circulated in the city of Madras on 10-8-1995 advertised themselves as Ramu Hosieries as a trade mark and trade name, adversely affecting the trade mark rights of the appellant. The appellant issued a "Caution Notice" in the issue dated 30-9-1995. By a registered letter dated 4-12-1995 of the appellant's counsel, the respondent was issued a "Cease and Desist Notice" and there was no reply thereto. Despite the above, the respondent continued to use the trade name and trade mark "Ramu" for Hosieries. Hence decided to file the suit."

5. It is undisputed that a "Caution Notice" through the Press and "Cease and Desist Notice" to the defendants were given. It is also not in dispute that the Trade Mark was registered in the Registry at Madras.

6. Advertisement is a step in the process of infringement to solicit customers in the name of the impugned trade mark. In other words, the advertisement is calculated to induce people to believe that such a property is meant for marketing.

7. Infringement of trade mark in Black's Law Dictionary is indicated to mean,

"that it is an unauthorised use or colourable imitation of the mark already appropriated by another on goods of a similar class. It exists if words or designs used by the defendant are identical with or so similar to the plaintiff's that they are likely to cause confusion or deceive or mislead others and one who affixes the trade mark of another to similar articles in such a way that his use of it is liable to cause confusion in the trade, or is calculated to mislead purchasers and induce them to buy infringer's articles as goods of the other thus depriving the latter of the full benefit of his property."

With this meaning in view if it is viewed, there is every possibility of unauthorised use likely to cause confusion in the trade and calculated to mislead purchasers. T