The judgment clarified the provisions regarding territorial jurisdiction for filing suits related to trademark and copyright infringement.

Valmiki J. Mehta, J. :

I.A. No. 14257/2015 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

I.A. stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 2065/2015 & I.A. No. 14256/2015 (Stay)

2. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction alleging a cause of action of infringement of its trade mark ‘AMRAPALI’.

3. Plaintiff alleges infringement of trade mark as also the copyright of the plaintiff in the depiction of the trade mark. In the suit the following prayers are made:-

“(a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and also its individual proprietor, Partners, channel partners, agents, representatives, dealers, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trade mark/label AMBAPALI LABEL WORD per se and in AMBAPALI LABEL or any other Trade Mark/Label identical with and/or deceptively similar thereto in relation to their impugned services and business of real estate development and related/allied services and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:-

(i) Infringement of aforesaid registered trademarks of the plaintiff under Class 19 and 37 respectively.

(ii) Passing off and violation of plaintiff’s rights in the said trademarks/label AMRAPALI.

(iii) Infringing and/or violating plaintiff’s copyrights in the said trade mark/label AMRAPALI.

(b) Restraining the defendants from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its shops and premises at Ambapali Green Gupta Green, Bampass Town, Deoghar and its stocks-in-trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendants’ disclosure thereof and and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135 (2) (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it could adversely affect the plaintiff’s ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.

(c) Restraining the defendants from using and selling the flats/other type of unit in its Group housing residential project at Deoghar, Jharkhand by the impugned name Ambapali Green or to use this name anywhere else.

(d) For an order for delivery up of all impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/label AMBAPALI LABEL, or any other deceptively similar trade mark/label including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literature and services etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.

(e) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendants by their impugned illegal trade activities and a decree for the amount so found in favour of plaintiff on such rendition of accounts.

(f) In alternative, to accounts for a decree for grant of damages of Rs. 21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs only) from the defendants, jointly and severally to the plaintiff.

(g) For an order for cost of proceedings, and

(h) For such other and further order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the present case.”

4. Jurisdiction of this Court is claimed on the basis of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 as per para 52 of the plaint and this para reads as under:-

“52. That this Hon’ble Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit as the Plaintiff operates in Delhi through its registered office at: 307, 3rd Floor, Nipun Tower, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-92. The Plaintiff Company carries on its business in Delhi through its several exclusive agents. The plaintiff has extensive goodwill and reputation under the said trademark on account of voluminous sales and advertisement within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. By virtue of above said this Hon’ble Court has the territ