FORD MOTOR COMPANY Vs. C.R. BORMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, Ford Motor Company, assails the Order dated 28.11.2007 of the learned Single Judge passed in IA No.270/2006 in CS(OS) No.1710/2005, allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C. for short) directing that the Plaint be 'returned for the purpose of filing before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction'.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated, the case of the Appellants/Plaintiffs is that "FORD" is one of the world's most well-known and reputed automobile manufacturers and one of the most successful commercial enterprises in the world. It has used FORD as a part of its trade/corporate name and as a trademark since 1903 which is widely recognised throughout the world. Through a Joint Venture, the Plaintiffs have been promoting and selling FORD Cars in India for several years and in March 2005 FORD became a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.1, namely, FORD Motor Company, Michigan, USA. It has been pleaded that apart from common law rights, the Plaintiffs own numerous registrations for its trademark FORD in India in various classes.

(3.) THE Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the Plaint pleading, inter alia, that the trademark FORD is the sole trademark of the Defendants who have been carrying on business since 1981. In May, 1991 it made an application for the registration of the trademark in Class-25 which was opposed by the Plaintiffs. In the application the Defendants have pleaded that "neither of the Defendants, actually and voluntarily resides nor carries on business or personally works for gain in Delhi and neither of the Plaintiffs have any office nor do they carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court". It has been submitted that the Suit and interlocutory proceedings before the Delhi High Court are an abuse of the legal process and are intended only to jeopardise the business of the Defendants. It has been averred as well as argued before the learned Single Judge as well as in the Appeal before us, that courts in Delhi do not have jurisdiction to try the Suit and no cause of action either wholly or in part has arisen within its jurisdiction. It has also been submitted by the Defendants that Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Act for short) will only apply in respect of registered trademarks; that no actionable claim has arisen since the Defendants' are using the mark FORD in respect of footwear and, therefore, a grievance of passing-off has not been disclosed either. Since the goods of the parties are completely different, there cannot be any confusion or deception in the course of trade inasmuch as the Plaintiffs were aware of the use of the mark FORD by the Defendants since 1997. The Suit, according to the Defendants, has been filed after gross delay, laches and acquiescence. In paragraph 12 it is stated that the Plaint does not disclose any cause of action and, therefore, it should be rejected under the various provisions of the CPC; that it should also be rejected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.