LAWS(DLH)-2022-9-25

TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. HAKUNAMATATA TATA FOUNDERS

Decided On September 19, 2022
Tata Sons Private Limited Appellant
V/S
Hakunamatata Tata Founders Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed under Sec. 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Sec. 10(1) of the Delhi High Court Act, 1966 read with Order 43(1)(r) and Sec. 151 CPC on behalf of the appellant assailing judgment dtd. 26/10/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the appellant/plaintiff's application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, registered as IA No.8000/2021 in CS(COMM) 316/2021, was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant, in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks, passing off, dilution and tarnishing of trademarks and copyrights etc., has sought ad-interim injunction against the respondents/defendants from using its registered trademark "TATA" for business purposes. It is generally alleged by the appellant in the suit that the respondents are businesses registered in the United Kingdom and the United States, which are using its trademark for doing online trading in cryptocurrency through their website(s) 'www.tatabonus.com' and 'www.hakunamatata.finance'. It is further alleged that the websites are accessible in India and are in fact accessed by visitors from Delhi on daily basis.

(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court ran into the question of territorial jurisdiction at the threshold itself and did not agree with the appellant that Courts in Delhi could have jurisdiction over the respondents who are registered and located overseas. Curiously, the learned Single Judge caveated his decision by characterising it as "a prima facie opinion", agreed to register and proceed with the suit in Delhi, yet declined to grant ad-interim injunction, when he otherwise did not doubt the appellant's intellectual property rights in the trademark "TATA" vis-a-vis the respondents. According to the learned Single Judge, extra-territorial reach of the jurisdiction of the Court over foreign-seated respondents was an issue, and he thus declined the prayer for grant of ad-interim injunction.