9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Court 2. Alleged infringement of trade mark 3. Alleged passing off 4. Alleged infringement of copyright 5. Leave under Clause 14 of Letters Patent Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of the Court: The defendants opposed the notice of motion on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the natural forum for the alleged cause of action would be the Court at Calcutta, not Bombay. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants had any dealings in Bombay, as no substantial evidence was provided. The Court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for the alleged infringement of trade mark and passing off. The Court emphasized that the plaintiffs' conduct to clutch at the jurisdiction of this Court lacked bona fides and that the averments made in the plaint were incorrect. 2. Alleged Infringement of Trade Mark: The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered trade marks. The defendants contended that they had no dealings in Bombay, and the Court found no substantial evidence to prove that the defendants marketed their goods in Bombay. The Court referred to the case of Firm Bhagwan Das v. Watkins Mayor & Co., which required proof that the goods were sent for sale in commercial quantity. The plaintiffs failed to meet this requirement, and the Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the trade mark infringement claim. 3. Alleged Passing Off: The plaintiffs also sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from using deceptively similar marks or labels. The Court reiterated that there was no proof of commercial-scale supply of the defendants' goods in Bombay. Citing the case of Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Federation Ltd. v. M/s. Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd., the Court held that without evidence of transactions in Bombay, it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the passing off claim. 4. Alleged Infringement of Copyright: The Court acknowledged that it had jurisdiction to entertain the suit for alleged infringement of the 1st plaintiff's copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as the plaintiffs carried on business in Bombay. However, the suit was a composite one, combining multiple causes of action without obtaining leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent. The Court decided not to exercise jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim in isolation at this stage, pending the disposal of the petition for leave under Clause 14. 5. Leave under Clause 14 of Letters Patent: The plaintiffs tendered a petition for leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent at the conclusion of arguments. The Court noted that such petitions could be entertained at any stage but expressed reluctance to grant leave due to the plaintiffs' conduct in making incorrect jurisdictional averments. The Court dismissed the notice of motion with costs, granting the plaintiffs liberty to take out a fresh notice of motion if leave under Clause 14 was granted. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the notice of motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction over the trade mark infringement and passing off claims but had jurisdiction over the copyright infringement claim. The plaintiffs were allowed to seek leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent and take out a fresh notice of motion if such leave was granted. The Court emphasized the plaintiffs' blameworthy conduct in making untrue jurisdictional averments.
|
