Ratios:
a. Leave to sue can be granted to a party only in case where the cause of action has arisen in part within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of that High Court.
b. The right of interest in a trademark is a movable property.
c. Where the infringement of trade mark has taken place partly in one jurisdiction by way of advertisement and partly in another jurisdiction by marketing the product, then the registered owner of the trademark can maintain the suit at the place where the cause of action has arisen partly or wholly which includes place of jurisdiction, advertisement or marketing.
d. Mere situs of the office of the trade mark registry within the jurisdiction of a High Court would not give territorial jurisdiction to that High Court to entertain the suit for its violation elsewhere.

M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.

These two intracourt appeals have arisen from the common order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in O.A.No.460 of 2008 and A.No.2025 of 2009.

2.The Court heard the learned Senior Counsels for the appellant and also for the respondent and looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge.

3.Pending the suit in C.S.No.422 of 2008 filed pursuant to the leave granted, the plaintiff also filed an application seeking interim injunction.While the matter stood thus, the defendant on appearance, made an application in A.No.1633 of 2009 for rejection of the plaint and also an application in A.No.2025/2009 for revocation of the leave already granted by the Court in A.No.1707 of 2008.On enquiry, the learned Single Judge has made an order revoking the leave already granted and consequent upon the same, the other application for rejection of plaint was closed, and the application for interim injunction was dismissed.Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has brought forth these two appeals before this Court.

4.As could be seen from the materials available, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs:

(a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale Tea using same or similar get up, and colour scheme used by the Defendants shown in Document No.2 and trade mark FAMILY TEA or any other visually similar mark or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark "ISPAHANI TEA" as shown in Document No.1 or in relation to any Tea and use the same pouches, packets or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark No.331910 in class 30 or in any manner infringe the Plaintiffs registered Trade Mark.

(b) A direction to the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearingdeceptively similar the color scheme and get up as shown in Document No.2 or other deceptively similar trade mark used in the pouches and packets in respect of Tea.

(c) A direction to the defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the impugned trademark and get up as shown in Document No.2 on the goods referred and a decree in the suit for the profits found to have been made by the defendant after the defendant has rendered accounts.

(d) For costs.

5.The plaintiff has alleged that they are partnership firm carrying on business in manufacturing and marketing tea since 1965 having its trade mark "ISPAHANI" with respect to their goods.The same trademark has its unique colour scheme, get up and lay out for the wrapper.The said trademark has been used by the plaintiff continuously and extensively without any interruption since its adoption.With a view to acquire statutory protection, the plaintiff applied for registration of the trademark on 212. 1977, with respect to tea. Though the said trademark was originally registered in the name of its founder partner, in the year 1983, pursuant to the change in the composition of the firm, an application was filed before the Registrar of Trade Mark to record the new partners.The same was also reflected in the journal with effect from 1983.When the firm underwent another change of composition in the year 1999, necessary forms were filed before the Trade Mark Registrar to record the new partners as its subsequent proprietors.Thus the partners of the firm are now registered proprietors of the trademark along with the present colour scheme, get up and layout.They filed an application for ano