KRISHAN INDUSTRIES Vs. KIMTI LAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Sections 134 and 135 read with Section 27(2) of the Trademark Act and under Section 51 of the Copyright Act praying inter alia that the defendants/its directors/agents/partners be restrained from infringing, directly or indirectly, the trademark of the plaintiff namely SKI or SKI LABLE for their goods and they should also be restrained from using any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark and from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The other prayer made by the plaintiff is that the defendant be ordered to deliver up all goods bearing similar or deceptively similar trademark as that of the plaintiff of packing materials, cartons, broachers, stickers etc having trademark similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. It is also prayed that the defendant be directed to render the accounts of its trade activities and should be restrained from disposing of or dealing the assets as its own manufacturing units and premises viz 149, Amar Garden, Preet Nagar, Jalandhar - 144 004 or other assets not known to the plaintiff. Plaintiff has also claimed damages of Rs. 20,05,000.00.

(2.) The title of the plaint shows that the plaintiff was located at Phagwara in Punjab and the defendant was located in Jalandhar in Punjab. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the plaintiff on the ground that the defendant was selling and marketing its goods in Delhi and soliciting trade and business from Delhi and other parts of the country and the defendant has filed the trademark application in the office of Registrar of Trade Mark, Delhi and defendant has obtained registration of its trademark on all India basis including Delhi. It is also stated that the plaintiff was selling its goods in Delhi under the impugned trademark and has goodwill and reputation about this trademark in Delhi which is being tarnished by the defendants.

(3.) Since the plaintiff is not residing or working for gain in Delhi neither the defendant was residing or working for gain in Delhi, the provisions of Section 134(2) of the Trademark Act or under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act or Section 20(a), (b) CPC could not be pressed into service by plaintiff for invoking jurisdiction of this Court. The only thing to be seen is whether territorial jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked on the ground that the goods of the plaintiff or defendants were being sold in Delhi. The plaintiff has not given the name of any shop or place in Delhi where the goods of the defendants were being sold and the trademark of the plaintiff was being infringed. Except making vague and bald averments that the goods of the defendants were being sold in Delhi, without giving any particular in support of its averments and without placing on record any bill of purchasing goods of defendants in Delhi, the territorial jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.