ORDER :

1. This application has been filed by the plaintiff/first defendant seeking revocation of leave granted to the respondent in A. No. 5013 of 2022 by order dated 28.11.2022.

2. The respondent herein filed the above suit for injunction restraining the applicant herein from infringing the registered trademark of the respondent AQJ's M&M by using the mark “MM MMUNNA” and for other reliefs. The respondent filed an application in A. No. 5013 of 2022 seeking leave to sue mainly on the ground that the second defendant in the suit sold applicant/first defendant products within territorial limits of this Court at Old No. 12, Singara Garden, 8th Lane, (Opposite To K.C.S. Girls School), Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600 021. The invoice for purchasing of infringing products within the territorial limits of this Court was produced by the respondent as Plaint Document No. 17.

3. On service of suit summons, the applicant/first defendant has come up with this petition seeking revocation of leave. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is carrying on business at Tiruppur. The respondent/plaintiff has got its registered office at Tiruppur within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court Tiruppur. It is also stated that neither the applicant nor the respondent have got any other branch or office within the territorial limits of this Court. The applicant had further averred that allegedly infringing products, evidence and witnesses all lie within the territorial jurisdiction of District Court Tiruppur. When the place of business of both the applicant and respondent is Tiruppur, the entire cause of action arose within the territorial limits of District Court, Tiruppur and hence leave granted to the respondent needs to be revoked. It was further averred by the applicant that merely because the respondent claimed that second defendant in the suit purportedly sold the infringing product within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the respondent is not entitled to obtain leave to sue.

4. The respondent herein filed a counter affidavit stating that the infringing products of the applicant were sold by the second defendant within the territorial limits of this Court and hence part of the cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this Court. It was also stated that this Court after taking into consideration part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits allowed the application for grant of leave to sue. It is also averred that the second defendant in his counter affidavit to Original Application Nos. 802 to 804 of 2022, admitted selling of infringing products within the territorial limits of this Court. Therefore, the respondent herein prayed for dismissal of the present application seeking revocation of leave.

5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that merely because single sale of infringing product had taken place at Chennai or part of the cause of action arose within territorial limits of this Court, the respondent is not entitled to maintain a suit before this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following judgments:

(i) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Another vs. Intas Biopharmaceuticals Limited, CDJ 2013 MHC 2364

(ii) K.K. Rajan, Trading as Shar Industries and Another vs. M/s. V. Vidhya Industries, a Registered Partnership Firm, Coimbatore, CDJ 2019 MHC 4621

7. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, when part of the cause of action arose within the territorial limits of this Court, it can exercise jurisdiction over the entire suit. The learned counsel by taking this Court to the order dated 28.11.2022 made in leave to sue application submitted that leave was granted to the respondent after having satisfied that part of the cause of action namely sale of infringed goods had taken place