The cause of action for infringement of a registered trade mark and passing off of goods arises at the place where the trade mark is registered.

P. K. SETHURAMAN, J.

The respondent in Application Nos. 3690 & 3691/87 as plaintiff filed the suit No. 156 of 1986 alleging that he had been manufacturing safety matches from the year 1955 and in the course of the trade using, in connection with safety matches manufactured by him, a distinctive trade mark 'National Park' with the device of a standing stage with a peculiar colour scheme and get-up with a view to indicate that such goods are of his manufacture and he had also registered the same under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and he has acquired valuable good will of the said trade mark because of its excellent and high quality standard. While so, during the middle of March 1986 he came to know that the defendant/applicant had commenced manufacturing and selling safety matches using an identical trade mark 'Running Deer' together with the device of 'Standing stag' with an identical coulour scheme and get up. The defendant has deliberately copied the plaintiff's well established trade mark 'National Park' together with the device of standing stage by using an identical 'Running Deer' trade mark label along with the device of standing stag with an identical colour scheme and get up. Hence the defendant is guilty of infringing the plaintiff's trade mark. Under such circumstances he has filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the offending trade mark 'Running Deer' together with standing stage. Along with the plaint he has filed Application No. 1402 of 1986 for an order of interim injunction and in the said application ad-interim injunction had been granted by S.A. Kader, J. on 20.3.1986.

2. The plaintiff did not seek permission to sue the defendant even though he has stated that the defendant is a proprietary concern, carrying on manufacturing and sale of safety matches at No. 1/48, Thottithorai, Mottur village, Morasapalli, Gudiyattam, North Arcot District.

3. After receipt of summons the defendant has filed the above said two application viz, A. Nos. 3690 & 3691 of 1987. In Application No. 3690 of 1987 the defendant/applicant prayed for the suspension of the operation of the order of interim injunction and in Application No. 3691 of 1987 for the rejection of the plaint as barred by law on the ground that defendant does not reside within the jurisdiction of the Court and hence the suit cannot be entertained by this Court unless the entirety of cause of action is within the jurisdiction of this Court and the event of only a part of cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of this Court prior leave of the Court is mandatory and the suit filed without conforming the mandatory requirement is non-set in the eye of law.

4. According to the defendant the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine as it has been filed without obtaining the leave of the Court under clause 12 of the Letter Patent. In the Plaint it is made clear that the defendant residing and carrying on business at Gudiyattam, North Arcot District and in the cause of action for the suit arose at Madras where the plaintiff's appropriate trade marks registry is situate, where the plaintiff's registered trade mark and passing off committed by the defendant is still persisting in his illegal activities of passing off within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

5. Further, according in the defendant the plaintiff's trade mark registry is situate within the jurisdiction of this Court, which provides only a part of the cause of action and not the entirety of the cause of action, and admittedly the defendant's manufacturing and residing place is at Gudiyattam and not in the city of Madras. Except the self-serving statement in paragraph 8 of the plaint that the infringement and passing off is committed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, no details are given. Whereas on plaintiff's own statement the defendant's manufacturing and residing place is at Gudiyattam. Where the defendant does not res