2001 (4) TMI 905 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
2. Infringement of Trademark and Copyright.
3. Passing-Off.
4. Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
5. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC.
6. Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court:
The Defendant No. 2 challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, arguing that since the alleged infringement occurred in Uganda, the suit should not be entertained in Delhi or any other court in India. The plaintiff countered that the manufacture was carried out in Mumbai and that the defendants carried on business in India, invoking Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows a suit to be instituted where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. The court concluded that the plaintiff's choice of the Delhi High Court was justified as the plaintiff had a registered office in Delhi and the infringing activities were carried out in India.

2. Infringement of Trademark and Copyright:
The plaintiff, proprietor of the trademark PANADOL and PANADOL EXTRA, alleged that the defendants infringed their trademark and copyright by using deceptively similar marks PAMACOL and PARAMOL EXTRA. The court noted that the defendants' packaging was intended to deceive the public into believing they were purchasing the plaintiff's products. The court upheld the plaintiff's claims, emphasizing the significant investment in advertising and the established reputation of the PANADOL brand.

3. Passing-Off:
The court found that the defendants' use of similar marks and packaging constituted passing-off, likely to cause confusion among consumers. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the plaintiff's established brand and preventing consumer deception.

4. Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC:
The plaintiff's application for an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was granted on 7.9.1999. The court found a prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement and passing-off, warranting the issuance of an injunction to prevent further harm to the plaintiff's business interests.

5. Application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC:
Defendant No. 2's application for vacation of the interim orders under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC was dismissed. The court treated this application as a reply to the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, emphasizing the need to avoid piecemeal adjudication and addressing all relevant applications based on arguments presented.

6. Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC:
Defendant No. 2's application for the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC was also dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently demonstrated that the cause of action arose in India, and the Delhi High Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the interim orders passed on 7.9.1999, granting the plaintiff's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Defendant No. 2's applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and Order VII Rule 10 CPC were dismissed with costs of Rs. 5000/-. The court upheld the plaintiff's claims of trademark and copyright infringement and passing-off, emphasizing the importance of protecting established brands and preventing consumer deception.