A.P. Shah, C.J.

Appeals admitted.

2. By consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeals were finally heard and are being disposed of by this judgment. The issue in these appeals is whether the High Court of Madras has the jurisdiction to entertain the suits filed by the appellants being C.S. No.874 of 2007 and C.S. No.996 of 2007 under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 respectively. We will refer to the appellants as plaintiffs and the respondents as defendants, for the sake of convenience. The learned single Judge rejected the suits on the ground that no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and that the defendants are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and that prior leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent was also not obtained. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred these appeals which fell for consideration before us.

3. C.S. No.874 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their registered trade mark "Chandrika" and from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale, soaps or toilet preparation with prefix or suffix with the expression "Chandrika". In C.S. No.996 of 2007, the plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing their copyright "Chandrika" and the colour scheme and get-up and restraining them from reproducing by selling, advertising or offering for sale, soaps by using the impugned copyright "Chandrika".

4. The first plaintiff Wipro is a Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Company and is said to be carrying on business for nearly sixty years. The second plaintiff Wipro Chandrika Limited is a subsidiary of the first plaintiff by virtue of the first plaintiff having 90% shareholding. The case of the plaintiffs is that in the year 2004, the second plaintiff acquired the trade mark "Chandrika" along with its goodwill, rights, interest and property under separate assignment deeds from M/s. S.V.Products and M/s. Lal Products and M/s. Chandrika Products and by virtue of the said assignments, the second plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the registered trade mark "Chandrika". According to the plaintiffs, the trade mark "Chandrika" was conceived by one Kesavan Vaidiyar, who was trading under the trade name M/s. S.V. Products and he later obtained registration of the trade mark "Chandrika" in Registration No.177588 in Class-3 in respect of medicated and toilet soaps in the year 1956. In the year 1965, Kesavan Vaidiyar gave the concurrent rights to C.K. Manilal Trading as M/s. Lal Products and C.V. Revi Trading as M/s. Chandrika Products, both his immediate family members, to use trade mark "Chandrika" for soaps, in different geographical locations. Kesavan Vadiyar himself was trading as M/s. S.V. Products using the trade mark "Chandrika" during this period. According to the plaintiffs, after the second plaintiff got the deed of assignment, the second plaintiff has executed License User Agreement in favour of the first plaintiff granting license to use the trade mark "Chandrika" and its copyright.

5. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have spent huge amount in promoting their business and the annual sales figure of the plaintiff goods bearing trade mark "Chandrika" run into several crores of rupees every year. In and around August 2007, the plaintiffs learnt that the defendants are manufacturing and selling goods under the trade mark "Chandrika" with prefix "Oushadha". The defendants have used Oushadha Chandrika logo on their cartons in the exact manner in which it had been registered in the year 1956 and the subsequent registrations held by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs allege that apart from adopting the trade mark "Chandrika", the defendants have adopted all the essential features of the plaintiffs registered trade mark, its colour scheme and get-up with respect