ST. IVES LABORATORIES INC Vs. ARIF PERFUMERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 134 and 135 of The Trade Marks Act as well as under Section 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act and under Specific Relief Act seeking permanent injunction of various nature against the defendants. In the title of suit, the address of the plaintiff is that of USA and the address of the defendants is of Maharashtra. The suit has been filed in Delhi on the ground that the defendants were surreptitiously and clandestinely trading their goods under the impugned trademark and labels in Delhi and other parts of the country as well and another ground is that plaintiff's trademark was registered with Registry of Trade Marks at Delhi and plaintiff was also having its business in Delhi through its authorized importer and distributor and that plaintiff holds excellent goodwill and reputation in Delhi.

(2.) IT is argued that this Court has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate this suit under Section 134 (2) of the Trade Marks Act and under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act. Section 62(2) of Copyright Act gives jurisdiction to every District Court to try a suit for infringement of Copyright if within the local limits of its jurisdiction, at the time of institution of the suit or other proceedings, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such person, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. It is not the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has been actually working for gain or was having registered office in Delhi therefore, Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act cannot be invoked. Similarly, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 which is pari materia with Section 62(2) for the purpose of jurisdiction by the plaintiff.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint would show that plaintiff had claimed reliefs viz. A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or their agents/distributors etc. from manufacturing, selling and dealing with the products using the trademark that of plaintiff's or the labels similar or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's. It is obvious that this injunction can be enforced by personal obedience of the defendants alone since plaintiff has not given name of any distributor, agent or stockiest or representatives of the defendant. The other relief sought is that defendants be restrained from infringing plaintiff's trademark and passing off their goods and business as that of plaintiff's and be restrained from infringing copyright in the artistic work involved in the plaintiff's label. This relief can also be enforced only by personal obedience of the defendants. The other relief sought is that the defendants be restrained from disposing of their assets and stocks and properties at shop No. 1 of Arif Apartment, Veer Savarkar Nagar, Vasai (West) thane, Maharashtra and they be directed to deliver all finished and unfinished material bearing the impugned trade mark/label and they be directed to render the accounts for ascertainment of the profits or in the alternative be granted damages of Rs. 20,01,000/-. All the reliefs which are sought by the plaintiff can be enforced only by personal obedience of the defendants.