SINGER COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHETAN MACHINE TOOLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The Singer Company Limited and Singer India Limited are the plaintiffs before me. They claim that plaintiff No. 1 is the largest and most successful sewing machine company. It manufactures and sells sewing machines besides other variety of goods in around 150 countries including india under the trademark "singer" which is registered in India since the year 1942 and that plaintiff No. 2 is an affiliate of plaintiff No. 1 and is a licensed user of its trademark. Based on these averments, plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants who are manufacturing and selling Milling Machines, on the allegation that they have adopted the trademark "singer" which is deceptively similar to their trademark in colour scheme and font and consequently, they are infringing their trademark and are also passing off their goods by riding on their piggy back. Hence, they have prayed for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from using the trademark "singer" or any other deceptively similar trademark.

(2.) THE defendants in response to the suit have filed an application under order VII Rule XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called the Code)and thereby seek rejection of the plaint, on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that there is not a whisper in the plaint that the defendants at the time of commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily reside or carry on business or personally work for gain or that the cause of action has, wholly or in part, arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is alleged that the only averment that has been made to invoke the jurisdiction of this court is that the first plaintiff through the second plaintiff carries on its business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court which averment, it is contended, is not enough to confer jurisdiction on this Court. Hence, it is further contended that the plaint is liable to be rejected.

(3.) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the issue raised, it needs to be noticed that the plaintiffs have along with the plaint filed number of documents and one such document is the reply of the defendants dated August 06, 2008 to a notice from the plaintiffs dated July 31, 2008 calling upon them to desist from using their trademark "singer". In their reply, the defendants had stated that they are established and reputed manufacturers and merchants of Milling Machines and machine tools since 1991 and that the said products are being sold throughout the country and have acquired a very vast and ever increasing reputation and goodwill. The reply so given was heavily relied upon by the plaintiffs to contend that this Court does have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.