$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment
delivered on: 30.08.2019
+
C.R.P. 163/2019 & CM APPL.
34784/2019, CM APPL. 34783/2019
M/S
EVER BAKE
|
.....
Petitioner
|
|||
versus
|
||||
M/S
EVERBAKE BAKERS PRIVATE LTD
|
..... Respondent
|
|||
Advocates who appeared in this case:
|
||||
For the
Petitioner
|
:
|
Mr.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv.
|
||
For the
Respondent
|
:
|
Mr.
Anshul Goel, Advocate
|
||
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1.
Petitioner impugns order dated
25.04.2019 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 10 and
11 CPC has been rejected. Petitioner had filed the application seeking
rejection of the plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
2.
Respondent/plaintiff had filed
the subject suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of
registered Trademark, delivery up and rendition of accounts against the
petitioner/defendant.
3.
Respondent
claims to be
the registered proprietor
of the
C.R.P. 163/2019 Page 1 of 3
trademark “EVER BAKE”. Subject suit was filed
contending that the petitioner was violating the statutory rights of the
respondent and were running a restaurant. It is further contended that the
petitioner had made an application seeking registration of an identical
trademark and had adopted the registered trademark of the respondent for their
goods and services which were identical to the goods and services of the
respondent/plaintiff.
4.
The only objection raised by the
petitioner was lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is contended that the
petitioner was carrying on its business at Assam and the suit has been filed in
Delhi and no part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction
of Courts at Delhi.
5.
Trial
court noticed the
judgment of the
Supreme Court in
Indian
Performing Rights Society Limited Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr. (2015) 10, SCC
161 and also the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors
(2016) 227 DLT 320(DB), wherein relying on Section 134 of the Trademarks Act it has been held that Section
134 of the Trademarks Act confers jurisdiction in addition to the jurisdiction
conferred on a Court under Section 20 CPC in the cases of registered trademarks
and permits the plaintiff to institute a suit seeking enforcement of rights in
registered trademarks before the Court of the District Judge having
jurisdiction over the territory in
C.R.P. 163/2019 Page 2 of 3
which the plaintiff resides or carries on business or personally works
for gain.
6.
The respondent/plaintiff has
registered office in Delhi situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Trial Court. Noting is pointed out to the contrary.
7.
Since Section 134 of the
Trademarks Act confers additional jurisdiction and the Suit of the plaintiff on
bare reading of the plaint has been correctly instituted within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Courts where the registered office of the
respondent/plaintiff is situated, there is no infirmity in the view taken by
the trial court and in rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order
7 Rules 10 &
11 CPC.
8.
In view of the above, I find no
merits in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
AUGUST 30, 2019 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
‘rs’
C.R.P. 163/2019 Page 3 of 3
No comments:
Post a Comment