The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions under Section 20 C.P.C, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, and the application of the principles established in the judgment in Sanjay Dalia's case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in A. No. 2747 of 2023: This application is filed under XIV Rule 8 and Order III Rule 1 of the O.S. Rules read with Clause 12 of the Letters Patent praying to grant leave of Court to the applicant to sue for the relief against the respondent for infringement of copyright and passing off by the respondent herein before this Court.)

(Prayer in C.S. (Comm.Div)Dr. No. 56111 of 2018: a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its directors, all their principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from passing off his / their goods by using the artistic work used by the plaintiff's prior adopted and used marks or any other word / words/ logo/artistic work / design / device that are identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's marks, artistic work, and products in respect of garments. b) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant all his principal officers, staff, men, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff by using the artistic work used by the plaintiff's prior adopted and used marks/designs or any other word /words /logo/artistic work/design/device that are identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's marks, artistic work, and products in respect of garments. c). That the Defendant be ordered and directed to pay the Plaintiff a sum of Rs. 5,07,000/-(Five Lakhs Seven Thousand Only) by way of damages. d). A Preliminary Decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render a true and faithful accounts of all profit made by them, using the Plaintiff's said Copyright and a final decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profit thus found to have been made by the Defendant, together with interest, after the Defendant has rendered accounts. e). That the Defendant be directed to deliver-up to the Plaintiff for destruction, all labels, all other print materials, stickers, signage, visiting cards, letter heads, catalogues, pamphlets, broachers, all other advertising and promotional material, all stationary, and such other material used for Passing Off and violating Plaintiff's Trade Marks and Copyright. f). For the costs of the suit;)

1. This application gives rise to only a legal issue, and therefore the facts of the case are set out briefly in the ensuing paragraphs.

2. The applicant/plaintiff has taken out this application, seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit against the respondent for infringement of the copyright and for passing off of the mark.

3. The grounds on which the applicant has taken out this application for leave to sue as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the application is extracted herein below:

“6...the infringing the products are sold in Chennai through various online platforms which is very well situated within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble High Court. I further state that the leave to sue is required under Clause 12 of Letters Patent Act since the respondent is residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the applicant sought for leave to sue.”

4. Admittedly, both the plaintiff and the defendant are carrying on business in Madurai, and neither the defendant nor the plaintiff has a place of business in Chennai. The suit is instituted on the premise that since the products of the defendant are sold online they can also be accessed within the jurisdiction of this Court by the consumers placing the order online and this Court therefore is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

5.When this application was moved, this Court, by order dated 16.06.2023, had ordered notice to the respondent. The respondent has also entered appearance and filed a counter, in which they have questioned the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that both the plaintiff and the defendant are carrying on business at