M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. A.No. 254 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an order of injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, its partners or proprietor as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and all others acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, including on the Internet and in any other manner using the trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RINSO or any other mark deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the petitioner pending disposal of the suit.

2. A.No. 255 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 has been filed by the plaintiff to grant an order of injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and all others acting on its behalf from passing off the goods manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed and/or sold by the respondent as the goods of the petitioner pending disposal of the suit.

3. A.No. 5547 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 has been filed to vacate the order of injunction granted in O.A.No. 253 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 dated 11.04.2016.

4. A.No. 5548 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 has been filed to reject the plaint in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

5. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as debunked in the plaint.

6. Heard Mr. Krishna Srinivas, learned counsel for M/s Ramasubramaniam & Associates for plaintiff and Mr. S. Mukund, learned counsel for Mr. E. Rajthilak, learned counsel for the defendant and Mr. Ramakrishnan Viraraghavan and Mr. M.S. Bharath, learned Amicus curiae.

7. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913, dealing with the production of home care products, detergents and personal hygiene and care products such as soaps, soap preparations etc.

8. The plaintiff has been indulging in the aforesaid fields for the past two decades. It has adopted the trademark 'RIN' registered as early as in the year 1963. The trademark 'RINSO' was registered on 09.10.1943. The registration for the above said names among others, contain the name 'RIN' stand as on today. The plaintiff is the market leader in this field. The plaintiff is having its registered Head Office at Mumbai. Incidentally, it got its branch office in various place including Chennai.

9. The defendant is doing business in the manufacturing of washing powder and detergents under the brand of 'RINSO' at Andhra Pradesh. It is needless to state that the plaintiff is doing business in the above said field of washing powder.

10. According to the plaintiff, apart from infringement of the registered mark, the defendant is using similar package, colour scheme and trade dress. Therefore, the present suit has been laid for infringement and passing off. The jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked by pressing into service Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 into Civil Procedure Code. Thus, admittedly, there is no infringement that is being carried on within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and so is the case within the territorial jurisdiction of registered office for the plaintiff.

11. On a prima facie consideration, this Court has granted an order of interim injunction on 11.04.2016 in O.A.No. 253 of 2016. As the defendant did not evince any interest in contesting the application, the interim order granted on 11.04.2016 was made absolute. Thereafter, the defendant has filed A.No. 5547 of 2016 in C.S.No. 202 of 2016 to vacate the order of injunction granted.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that on a mere perusal of the prod