The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must have a branch office within the jurisdiction of the court to file a suit for infringement of trade mark under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

1. The present application has been filed by the applicant/defendant in the suit in C.S.No.426 of 2013 under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint filed by the respondent/plaintiff stating that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudge the present suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranking in the civil suit.

3. The plaintiff has filed the suit in C.S.No.426 of 2013 as against the defendant for the following reliefs:-

(i) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents or any person claiming through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's trade mark "OLAMIN" by manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale the defendant's product in the name and style of "OLMIN" or any other deceptively similar name.

(ii) For a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men, agents or any person claiming through them from in any manner manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale their product "OLMIN" or similar sounding names in the course of their business and pass off their products using the trademark "OLAMIN" or with additions as and for the goods of the plaintiff or enable others to pass off.

(iii) For a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to surrender all the infringing products, packing materials, labels, etc., in the market to the plaintiff for destroying. and

(iv) Award costs.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are engaged in the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical products since 1973. The defendant company, which is trading in the same field as that of the plaintiff, with a view to capitalize the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's mark, copied and adopted the infringing mark OLMIN that is similar to the plaintiff's registered OLAMIN mark. During May 2011, the plaintiff's marketing agents informed that the defendant is also releasing their goods being the very same pharmaceutical preparations under the very same trade mark "OLMIN". Hence, immediately, the plaintiff caused an extensive search in the market and was shocked to find that the defendant had clandestinely mixed their product by adopting the plaintiff's trade mark "OLAMIN" in the market by lifting the letter 'A' which sounds similar. Since the defendant is actually adopting the same trade mark of the plaintiff and their trade mark is an absolute copy of the plaintiff's registered marks and their mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, it creats absolute confusion in the market and amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's mark. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the prayer stated supra.

5. On appearance, the defendant has filed the present application under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint filed by the plaintiff stating that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudge the present suit. Though very many contentions were raised in the affidavit filed in support of the present application, learned counsel appearing for the defendant restricted his argument only with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try the suit as contemplated under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Hence, the averments related to the territorial jurisdiction alone are extracted from the affidavit filed in support of the application, which reads as follows:-

According to the plaintiff, they are having the grievance against one Med Plus Medical shop in Arumbakkam at Chennai, stating that they had sold the product OLMIN without the doctor's prescription. But, the plaintiff has not made the said medical shop as defendant in the suit. The defendant shall not be made to suffer because of the alleged mistake committed by the said medical shop and hence, they do not hold any vicario