IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on:12.09.2022

+

FAO(COMM) 78/2022

M/S MAAN PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.

..... Petitioner

versus

M/S MINDWAVE HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Mr. Arnav Chatterjee

& Mr. Ashok Shukla, Advs.

For the Respondent

: Mr. Sushant Mahapatra, Mr. Deepak Kumar

Mahapatra & Mr. Amit Singh Gulia, Advs.

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

AMIT MAHAJAN, J

1.

The appellant (hereinafter ‘MAAN’) has filed the present

appeal, aggrieved by an order dated 07.12.2021 (hereinafter ‘the

impugned order’) passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial

Court-02), Saket Courts - South District, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘the

learned Trial Court’), whereby the application filed by the appellant

(defendant) under Order VII Rules 10 and 11 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘the CPC’), was dismissed.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003604

2.

The respondent, M/s Mindwave Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

(hereinafter ‘MINDWAVE’), filed a suit against MAAN, inter alia,

seeking permanent injunction restraining MAAN from using the

trademark “BUPROEX-N”. MINDWAVE claims to be the registered

owner of the said trademark and it alleged unauthorized use of the said

trademark by MAAN.

3.

MINDWAVE, for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction of the

learned Trial Court at Saket, pleaded as under:

suit is for infringement of the registered trademark of Plaintiff.”

4.

However, MAAN took a preliminary objection and filed an

application under Order VII, Rules 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of

the CPC seeking return of the plaint due to lack of territorial

jurisdiction and the alleged non-compliance by MINDWAVE, in

terms of the directions/guidelines prescribed by this Court in the case

of Amrish Aggarwal v. M/s Venus Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd.: 2019

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003604

SCC OnLine Del 9966. MAAN pleaded that MINDWAVE only has a

sales office within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court

at Saket and the registered office of MINDWAVE is located in

Mangol Puri Industrial area, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction

of the learned Trial Court at Saket.

5.

MAAN contended that even though the registered office of

MINDWAVE has now been shifted to Neb Sarai, which is within the

territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at Saket, however, at

the material time when the suit was filed, the learned Trial Court at

Saket had no territorial jurisdiction. MAAN further contended that a

suit for injunction on the basis of mere apprehension cannot be

maintained being without cause.

6.

The learned Trial Court, after considering the rival contentions,

dismissed the said application by the impugned order, which led to

filing of the present appeal.

7.

The learned Trial Court had held as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003604

registered has no right to seek ad-interim injunction.”

8.

We have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both the

parties and find no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the

learned Trial Court.

9.

It is not disputed by MAAN that MINDWAVE had a godown

and was carrying on the business from its office at Neb Sarai, which is

located within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Trial Court at

Saket. The contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for

MAAN that since the registered office of MINDWAVE was not at

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003604

Neb Sarai, but only the sales office, would dis-entitle the Trial Court

at Saket to have territorial jurisdiction, is unmerited.

10.

The issue of territorial jurisdiction in relation to infringement of

trademarks is governed by Section 134(2)