9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of leave to sue. 2. Jurisdiction of the court. 3. Infringement and piracy of registered designs. 4. Cause of action and its establishment. 5. Forum conveniens. Detailed Analysis: Revocation of Leave to Sue: The appellant/plaintiff challenged the order dated 5.9.2007, where the learned single Judge revoked the leave previously granted on 11.10.2006. The single Judge revoked the leave on the grounds that there was no evidence of sales within the jurisdiction of the court and both parties conducted business elsewhere. The appellant/plaintiff argued that the learned single Judge should not have revoked the leave as they had submitted purchase bills showing sales within the court's jurisdiction. The court held that the appellant/plaintiff should be allowed to prove the sales during the trial. Jurisdiction of the Court: The appellant/plaintiff argued that the court had both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the case, as the respondent/defendant was selling pirated biscuit packets within Chennai. The respondent/defendant contended that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's products were sold in Chennai. The court noted that jurisdictional issues requiring evidence should be decided during the trial, not at the preliminary stage. Infringement and Piracy of Registered Designs: The appellant/plaintiff claimed that the respondent/defendant was marketing biscuits in packets that imitated their registered designs, thereby committing infringement and piracy. The respondent/defendant argued that the designs were not original and were common types, and that the appellant/plaintiff had fraudulently secured registrations. The court emphasized that the Designs Act, 2000, provides exclusive rights to the registered proprietor and that these issues should be addressed during the trial. Cause of Action and Its Establishment: The appellant/plaintiff asserted that the cause of action arose when the defendant sold biscuit packets with the plaintiff's design, and when the defendant failed to comply with a legal notice. The respondent/defendant argued that there was no proof of sales in Chennai. The court held that whether a cause of action has arisen is a question of fact that can only be decided after recording evidence. Forum Conveniens: The learned single Judge had observed that the doctrine of forum conveniens applied, as both parties conducted business outside the court's jurisdiction. The appellant/plaintiff contended that this doctrine should not apply to a suit filed in the Original Side of the High Court. The court noted that the concept of forum conveniens is to avoid suits being filed in inconvenient forums, but in this case, the balance of convenience favored the appellant/plaintiff. Conclusion: The court set aside the impugned order dated 5.9.2007, allowing the original side appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff. It was held that the suit should proceed to trial where both parties could present oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their claims. The court emphasized that questions of jurisdiction and cause of action should be addressed during the trial, not at the preliminary stage. The parties were directed to work out their remedies in the main suit conclusively.
|
