9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Infringement of Copyright and Trade Marks 3. Interim Injunction Detailed Analysis: 1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The primary contention by the defendants was that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiff, a company incorporated in the U.S.A., argued that it carried on business in India through various distributors and collaborators, including those in Delhi. The defendants, based in Mumbai, argued that no cause of action arose in Delhi and that the plaintiff did not have any business activities related to the disputed goods (footwear and garments) in Delhi. The Court analyzed Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which allows a suit to be filed where the plaintiff resides or carries on business, a significant departure from Section 20 of the CPC, which typically considers the defendant's location. The Court noted that the plaintiff's business activities in Delhi through its distributors were sufficient to establish jurisdiction, even if those activities did not directly relate to the disputed goods. The Court emphasized the purposive interpretation of Section 62, aiming to inconvenience the transgressor rather than the sufferer. Consequently, the Court held that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Infringement of Copyright and Trade Marks: The plaintiff claimed infringement of its well-known trade marks CAT and CATERPILLAR, used since 1904 and registered in the U.S.A. since 1910. The plaintiff's marks were associated with a wide range of products, including heavy machinery and apparel. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants were counterfeiting its marks on garments, particularly branded jeans, and infringing its copyright in the CAT/CATERPILLAR logo. The plaintiff provided evidence of the defendants' activities, including invoices and packing lists for counterfeit goods and an investigation report detailing the defendants' operations. The Court noted that the plaintiff's marks were well-known globally and in India, despite the lack of registration for footwear and clothing in India. The Court also referenced a recent decision by the Madras High Court, which recognized the plaintiff's reputation and granted an interim injunction against a different defendant for similar infringement. 3. Interim Injunction: The plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, which was granted on 9th August 1999, restraining the defendants from using the trade marks CAT/CATERPILLAR. A Local Commissioner was appointed to prepare an inventory of the defendants' goods. After service of summons, the defendants sought to recall or modify the interim order, arguing primarily on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction. The Court, however, made the interim order absolute on 31st August 2000 due to the defendants' failure to file a written statement within the stipulated time. The defendants filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC, challenging the territorial jurisdiction and seeking to recall the interim order. The Court dismissed these applications, reiterating its jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's business activities in Delhi. The Court held that the interim injunction would remain in operation until the suit was finally decided. Conclusion: The Delhi High Court concluded that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit based on the plaintiff's business activities in Delhi, even if those activities did not directly relate to the disputed goods. The Court dismissed the defendants' applications challenging jurisdiction and seeking to recall the interim order. The interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade marks CAT/CATERPILLAR was made absolute and would remain in effect until the final decision of the suit.
|
