2010 (8) TMI 1097 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of territorial jurisdiction in a trademark infringement case.

Details of the judgment:

1. The Plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark "VO5" and alleged that the Defendant applied for a similar mark and used it without authorization. The Defendant contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit as they were based in Thane, Maharashtra. The Plaintiff argued that the suit was maintainable based on the business transactions conducted within the jurisdiction of the Court, including dispatching goods to Delhi. The Plaintiff requested an opportunity to prove its case during the trial.

2. The Defendant argued that the Plaintiff did not have any office or conduct business through a licensee within the jurisdiction of the Court. They emphasized that the Plaintiff's products were not sold in Delhi as per the invoices on record. The Defendant relied on previous legal decisions to support their stance that the suit was not maintainable based on the lack of business presence in Delhi.

3. The Court noted that after framing issues in 2005, no additional evidence was brought on record to establish the Defendant's presence in Delhi. The Court considered two invoices submitted by the Defendant, showing goods dispatched to Delhi, but deemed it insufficient to establish trading in Delhi or a cause of action for the suit. Citing precedent, the Court concluded that a trivial part of the cause of action in a specific place was not enough to confer jurisdiction.

4. Ultimately, the Court decided to return the suit to the Plaintiff to be filed before the Principal Civil Judge at Thane, as the suit was not maintainable due to the lack of substantial business presence or cause of action in Delhi. The parties were directed to appear before the Principal Civil Judge, Thane, on a specified date.

This judgment highlights the importance of establishing territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases and emphasizes the need for substantial business presence or cause of action in the relevant jurisdiction for a suit to be maintainable.