Delhi District Court
Mehta Tea Private Limited vs Young Asr India Private Limited on 18 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURTS)-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS (COMM) 228/2024
CNR No. DLST01-004688-2024
Mehta Tea Pvt. Ltd.
Addressed at :-
Bicholi Bypass,
In front of Columbia School,
Near Bharat Gas, Indore - 452001,
Madhya Pradesh ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Young ASR India Pvt. Ltd.
Addressed at:
H. No. 284/7, Near Sapphire Public School,
Pur Road Bhilwara,
Bhilwaram, Rajasthan, India - 311001 .....Defendant no. 1
SURENDRA SINGH
Addressed at:
H-No. 284/7,
Near Sapphire Public School
Pur Road Bhilwara
Bhilwaram, Rajashtan India- 311001 ... Defendant No.2
AJAY MALIK
Addressed at:
H-No. 284/7,
Near Sapphire Public School
Pur Road Bhilwara
Bhilwaram, Rajashtan India- 311001
Also at:-
House no. - 1049 Mahaver Nagar
1st Kota, Rajasthan -324005 ... Defendant No.3
TANISHQ JAIN
Addressed at:
H-No. 284/7,
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 1 of 40
Near Sapphire Public School
Pur Road Bhilwara,
Bhilwaram,Rajashtan India- 311001
Also at:-
JAHAZPUR, BHIL W ARA,
RAJASTHAN, 311201 ... Defendant No.4
Institution of the Suit : 09.05.2024
Arguments concluded on : 20.09.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 18.10.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. This suit u/s 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts, etc. against defendants.
2. Brief facts:- Plaintiff was stated to be a Private Limited Company duly incorporated on 30.06.1998 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and was engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of tea-leaves, tea, Coffee, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking-powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), spices, and allied and cognate products under the trademark "CHOTA CHAMACH" including the label CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 2 of 40 Plaintiff was stated to have developed many products for healthy range of its said goods and business such as SANAN URJA CHAI, SANAN SUPAR KADAK, SANAN E CHAI, CHOTA CHAMACH etc. However, for the purposes of the present proceedings the Plaintiff was only limiting the challenge to the trademark/ label "CHOTA CHAMACH" the label and the artwork "CHOTA CHAMACH", "CHOTA CHAMACH PREMIUM", CHOTA CHAMACH GOLD" & "CHOTA CHAMACH ROYAL".
3. The present suit was filed by one Mr. Nitin Porwal (Authorized Representative of the Company), Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff, who was stated to be duly authorized vide Authority Letter dated 23.04.2024, on behalf of the Plaintiff company to sign, verify and file the present lis as he was fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
4. Plaintiff was stated to have been worked diligently to expand its wings across FMCG sector and was committed to creating share prosperity and delivering shared value and had been doing so for more than 33 years. Plaintiff was also stated to have 100 products, more than 250 distributors across India and more than 10,000 retailers in India.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 3 of 40
5. Plaintiff was stated to be a part of "Mehta Group Companies", having different divisions through which it had carried on its business and was carrying on the sale of its afore- said goods/business under the said trademark/ label through the 'SANAN TEA' division through its interactive website www.sanan.in which was accessible for prospective consumers.
6. It had been submitted that on 28.12.2015, the Plaintiff had honestly and bonafidely adopted the trademark "CHOTA CHAMACH" for expansion of its business in tea products and applied for registration thereof under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999 in relation to the afore-said goods and services in class 30.
7. Plaintiff was stated to have adopted and started using the said trademark/label/device of CHOTA CHAMACH on its packaging of tea in a distinctive packaging/trade dress/colour combination.
8. It had been submitted further that in order to distinguish its goods from others, the Plaintiff had been using several distinctive trademarks including "CHOTA CHAMACH"
(including the trade dress/ packaging/ colour combination) which the Plaintiff had been uninterruptedly and continuously using the said trademark/label since then and on an ever increasingly scale throughout India. The Plaintiff was the proprietor of various earlier trademarks which contained word 'CHAMACH' as an integral, essential, dominant and prominent part thereof.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 4 of 40
9. It had been submitted further that in order to obtain statutory rights in the said trademarks/ labels/trade dress/packaging/colour combination, the Plaintiff had filed various applications for registration of the same under different classes in respect of goods and services falling under the provisions of Trade Marks Act, 1999. Details of the said applications and registrations were as under :-
S. Trade Applicati Clas Date of Status User Disclai No. Mark on no. s Applicati claimed mer/ on conditi on
1. CHOTA 4852372 30 06.02.202 Regist 07.07.20 No CHAMA 1 ered 17 exclusi CH ve right descrip tive matters appeari ng in the mark/la bel
2. CHOTA 4852373 35 06.02.202 Regist 07.07.20 None.
CHAMA 1 ered 17
CH
3. CHOTA 4843704 29 01.02.202 Regist 28.12.20 No CHAMA 1 ered 15 exclusi CH ve right descrip tive matters appeari ng in the mark/la bel
4. CHOTA 3140626 30 28.12.201 Regist Propose This is CHAMA 5 ered d to be condito CH used n of (LABEL) registra CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 5 of 40 tion on that both/all labels shall be used togethe r.
10. It had been submitted further that the artistic work involved in the plaintiff's aforesaid trademark/label/artistic work " CHOTA CHAMACH", "CHOTA CHAMACH PREMIUM", "CHOTA CHAMACH GOLD" & "CHOTA CHAMACH ROYAL" was an original artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Plaintiff was the owner thereof and it had the exclusive right to deal with them and had been so dealing with them in the course of trade in relation to its aforesaid goods and business, inter-alia, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The copyright in the artwork of said trademark/label/device of the Plaintiff was enforceable within the ambit of the Copyright Act, 1957 as well as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention and the International Copyright Order 1991.
11. It was stated that a combination of red packaging with a unique placement of element such as the stylization and writing of CHOTA CHAMACH in (Hindi), a picture of a spoon, placement of Premium/Royal/Gold which was strategically positioned at the bottom side of the front packaging with the image of a cup of tea, was a unique and distinctive packaging CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 6 of 40 which was an influencing factor amongst the consumers and trade channels.
12. The Plaintiff was stated to have vast and extensive goodwill and reputation of its products under the said trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination in South Delhi and throughout the country. The details of the annual sales of the plaintiff under the said trademark/trade dress/packaging/combination of colours were given under :-
Sales figures of the Plaintiff.
Financial Year Turnover in INR
2013-2014 25,24,45,064.80/-
2014-2015 25,08,15,487.45/-
2015-2016 26,20,74,384.16/-
2016-2017 26,09,31,568.43/-
2017-2018 26,95,77,715.45/-
2018-2019 33,76,12,845.19/-
2019-2020 39,30,11,636.23/-
2020-2021 44,86,14,888.70/-
2021-2022 66,68,21,028.75/-
2022-2023 68,29,31,237.42/-
13. It was stated further that in the year 2021, the Plaintiff in order to strengthen its advertising campaign worldwide (including India) had entered into a license agreement to use the image of notable celebrity "Rupali Ganguly" for all of its digital platforms.
14. Plaintiff was stated to have promoted and advertised it's aforesaid goods and services under its trademark/label/trade CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 7 of 40 dress/packaging/combination of the said trademark/label/trade of colours through its domain name www.sanan.in; and websites and various inter-active e-commerce platforms like www.amazon.in, www.meesho.com, www.indiamart.com, etc. and had maintained a formidable presence on the internet. The said domain name was also interactive in nature.
15. It had been submitted further that Plaintiff in order to solicit, advertise and expand its business as well as to connect with its customers/consumers; proactively relied upon social media platforms like www.instagram.com, www.facebook.com.
16. It had been submitted further that the said goods and business of the Plaintiff under the said trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/ colour combination had become a well-known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in view of the same, nobody could have been permitted to use or deal with the same/similar trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/ colour combination either as a trade mark or in any other manner in relation to any of its goods and business without the leave and license of the Plaintiff.
17. It had been submitted further that by virtue of operation of Section 29 (4) of the Act, any use of identical/ deceptively similar trademarks/trade names/logos/labels/domain name by any other party in relation to even different goods and business amounted to violation of Plaintiff's rights, which was not permissible in law.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 8 of 40
18. Defendant No. 1 was stated to be a private limited company and the defendants No. 2, 3 & 4 were the respective directors in the said company and as per the records of the Trademark registry, defendants no. 3 & 4 were stated to have applied for the impugned trademark application.
Defendants were stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, supplying, soliciting, displaying, advertising, importing/ exporting and supplying of tea, tea extracts, tea bags, tea beverages, tea mix powders, tea based drinks and beverages, instant tea, green tea, instant green tea, coffee, coffee extracts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard; vinegar; ice and allied/cognate/related goods and services.
19. Defendant No.1 in nexus with Defendant No.2 to 4 was stated to have dishonestly and malafidely adopted and started using the trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/ colour combination " 1 CHAMACH CHAI"
20. It had been submitted further that the trademark application bearing No. 6303033 was filed by the Defendant No. 3 and trademark application bearing no. 6280388 was filed by the Defendant No. 4 and further, the Defendant No. 3 had also filed an interlocutory petition to decline the registration of the CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 9 of 40 application for registration of the mark bearing no. 6280388 in class 30 filed by the Defendant No. 4.
21. It had been submitted further that upon gaining knowledge of the defendants adoption of the aforesaid impugned trademarks in third week of March, 2024, Plaintiff had sent a legal notice upon the defendants in the fourth week of March, 2024 i.e. on 27.03.2024 to Cease-and-Desist from using/pursuing the said trademark application and to restrain from using the impugned trademark in respect of the impugned goods, against which the Plaintiff had received a reply from the defendants on 23.04.2024, whereby the defendants had claimed that the marks were dis- similar. The Registrar of trademarks was stated to have also objected to the impugned applications.
It had been submitted further that in their reply to the above- mentioned legal notice, the Defendants had claimed that they had been using the impugned trademark/label since 2015 and the Defendant No. 4, on behalf of Defendant No. l had been actively involved in the tea business since the year 2016.
22. Defendants were also soliciting and seeking market networks and trade in respect of its impugned trademark/label and promoting/advertising the impugned products by word of mouth in various markets of Delhi including markets of South- Delhi.
23. It had been submitted further that the impugned trade mark/label/trade dress/colour combination/ packaging adopted and being used by the defendants in relation to their CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 10 of 40 impugned goods and business were identical with and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said trade mark/label/trade dress/color combination/packaging in each and every aspect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features.
24. It had been submitted further that due to impugned activities of the defendants, Plaintiff was suffering huge losses both in business and reputation, which were incapable of being assessed in monetary terms and the unwary purchasers were being deceived as to the origin of goods. Hence, without prejudice to the rendition of accounts and in alternative thereto, the defendants were also stated to be jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the plaintiff in view of huge loss to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- and Plaintiff had also craved leave to reserve its right under the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC to pray for suitable additional damages at the appropriate stage in the proceedings.
25. Defendants were stated to have been passing off their goods as those of plaintiff's goods and were deriving unjust benefits from the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff.
26. The cause of action was stated to have firstly arisen in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendants in the third week of March, 2024, when the Plaintiff had come across the impugned trademark application number 6303033 and 6280388 in class 30 filed by the defendants no. 3 & 4 respectively for the device mark "1 CHAMACH CHAI". It had arisen further when the Plaintiff had sent a legal notice to the Defendant No. l to stop CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 11 of 40 using the impugned mark on the impugned goods as well as on 23.04.2024, when the Defendant No. 4 on behalf of Defendant No. 1 had replied to the aforesaid legal notice. Cause of action was also stated to be still continuing as on the date of filing of the suit as defendants had failed to stop infringement of the impugned trademark of the Plaintiff.
27. Since the defendants were soliciting, networking and had intended to sell their impugned goods and business under the impugned trademark/label in the markets of South Delhi viz. Saket, Malviya Nagar, Neb Sarai, Hauz Khas, Sarojini Nagar, which were situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, and since the Plaintiff was stated to be also selling its goods through various dealers, distributors and special agents within the territorial jurisdiction of this court as well as it was carrying on its business through the website www.sanan.in and various online marketplaces like www.indiamart.com and www.meesho.com etc., from where the goods were deliverable within the jurisdiction of this Court, hence, this court was stated to have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present lis by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks act, 1999.
28. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff had prayed for passing of a decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendants detailed as hereunder:-
(i) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by itself as also through its individual proprietors/partners, agents, CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 12 of 40 representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on its behalf from using, selling, soliciting, manufacturing, marketing, importing, exporting, displaying, advertising, or by any other mode or manner dealing in the course of trade in the physical or online market place including by way of export and import, refilling, packaging and distributing under the impugned marks/labels "1 CHAMACH CHAI" any other trademark/label/trade dress which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff said trademarks/labels/trade dress/colour combination CHOTACHAMACH/ in relation to its goods and related/allied goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount to:
a. Infringement of Plaintiff aforesaid registered trademarks/labels b. Passing off their goods as that of the Plaintiff Company's and in violation of the Plaintiff Company's rights in its said trademarks/labels;
c. Infringement of copyright in the artwork of the said trademarks/labels; and d. Falsification, unfair and unethical trade practices.
(ii) Restraining the Defendants from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its shops, CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 13 of 40 facilities and premises including those at the addresses mentioned in the memo of parties and its stocks-in-trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of this Court during the course of the proceedings and on the Defendant's disclosure thereof and which the defendants would be called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the Plaintiff Company as the Plaintiff Company was not aware of the same as per Section 135 (2) ( c) of the Act as it could have adversely affected the Plaintiff Company's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon;
(iii) For an order for delivery up of all the impugned, finished and unfinished, material under the Plaintiff Company's said trademarks/labels or any other word/mark/ device which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff Company's said trademarks/labels including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the Plaintiff Company for the purposes of their destruction and erasure;
(iv) For an order for disclosure of the exact source of the infringing goods and its supply and distribution network from the Defendant;
(v) For the decree of grant of damages to the tune of Rs. 3,10,000/- from the Defendants to the Plaintiff;
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 14 of 40
(vi). In the alternative, for an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the Defendant by its impugned trade activities (including and not limited to payments received through the various online payment services and portals) and a decree for the amount so found in favour of the Plaintiff Company on such rendition of accounts;
(vii) for an order for cost of proceedings.
29. Upon service of notice, the defendants no. 1, 2 and 4 had appeared to contest the case of Plaintiff on its merits through their Ld. Counsel and filed their joint written statement on record, wherein they had taken a preliminary objection that Plaintiff was guilty of concealment of material facts as well as for not approaching the court with clean hands. No cause of action was stated to have arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try and entertain the present suit was also challenged by them.
Further, as per order-sheet dated 21.10.2024, since neither any appearance had been caused nor any written statement was filed on behalf of Defendant no. 3, hence, he was proceeded ex-parte on 21.10.2024 On merits, except for the facts which were specifically admitted by the contesting defendants to be correct or purely and essentially constituted matter of record, rest others were denied by them as wrong and incorrect.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 15 of 40
30. On the pleadings of the parties, this Court vide its order dated 21.10.2024, had framed the following issues for determination:-
(i)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to delivery up of infringing material and decree for rendition of accounts, if so, from whom? OPP
(iii) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 1, 2 and 4.
(iv) Whether the present suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD 1, 2 and 4
(v) Relief.
31. In its evidence, plaintiff had examined one Sh. Nitin Porwal, S/o Sh. Pradeep Porwal, aged about 41 years, AR for the Plaintiff, who had placed on record, affidavit PW1/A in his examination-in-chief reiterating the factual averments of plaint on solemn affirmation. The Plaintiff had also placed on record the following documents:-
1.Ex. PW-1/1 - True representation of Plaintiff's trade mark.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 16 of 40
2.Ex. PW-1/2 - True representation of the Plaintiff's goods bearing its trademarks.
3.Ex. PW1/3 - True representation of the Defendants' impugned goods bearing their impugned trademarks.
4. Ex. PW-1/4 - Comparison chart between the Plaintiff's goods bearing its trademarks and the impugned goods of the defendants' impugned trademarks.
5. Ex. PW-1/5 - Certification of incorporation of the Plaintiff dated 13.06.1998.
6.Ex.PW-1/6 - Copies of the journal and status report of the Plaintiff's trademark applications.
7. Ex.PW-1/7 - Copies of screenshots of the Plaintiff's website www.sanan.in.
8. Ex.PW-1/8 - Invoices pertaining to Plaintiff products under the trade/label/logo CHOTA CHAMACH.
9. Ex.PW-1/9 - License agreement between the Plaintiff and Mash Audio Visuals Pvt. Ltd.
10.Ex.PW-1/10 - Impugned trademark application under no. 6303033 in class 30 filed by Defendant no. 3.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 17 of 40
11.Ex.PW-1/11 - Impugned trademark application under no. 6280388 in class 30 filed by Defendant no. 4.
12. Ex.PW-1/12 - Interlocutory petition filed by Defendant no. 4 to the impugned trademark application under no. 6303033 filed by Defendant no. 3.
13. Ex.PW-1/13 - Presence of Plaintiff's goods/business on various e-commerce websites.
14. Ex.PW-1/14 - Screenshots of the presence of Plaintiff's goods on the social media platforms.
15.Ex.PW-1/15 - Screenshots indicating that the Plaintiff's goods are accessible and available within the jurisdiction of this Court.
16.Ex.PW-1/16 - CA certified sales figures of the Plaintiff for the period of 2013- 2014 till 2022-2023.
17.Ex.PW-1/17 - Copy of legal notice dated 27.03.2024 sent on behalf of Plaintiff addressed to the Defendant no. 1.
18.Ex.PW-1/18 - Copy of the reply dated 09.04.2024 of the Defendant no.
1 to the legal notice dated 27.03.2024.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 18 of 40
19.Ex.PW-1/19 - Copy of Board Resolution dated 23.04.2024 in favour of Mr. Nitin Porwal passed by the Plaintiff.
Since none had appeared on behalf of the defendants, hence PW-1 was not cross-examined on their behalf.
32. Thereafter Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
33. In its defence evidence, Defendant had examined DW-1, Sh. Tanishq Jain, S/o Sh. Anil Jain, aged about 27 years, one of its directors, who had appeared in the witness box and had filed in evidence, his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/A, wherein he had reiterated the stand of defendants as taken in their written statement on solemn affirmation and had also placed on record the following documents:-
1. Ex. DW-1/1 - Board resolution dated 20.06.2024 passed by defendants in favour of their AR.
2.Ex. DW-1/2 - Resignation letter dated 20.06.2024 of Defendant no. 3.
3.Ex. DW-1/3 - Screenshot of WhatsApp message floated by Mr. Purshotam Rath.
4. Ex. DW-1/4 - Copy of WhatsApp message of the drawing style of Chota CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 19 of 40 Chamach Chai and also crossing the pouch 1 Chamach Chai premium sent by Mr. Purshotam Rath from the side of Plaintiff.
5.Ex. DW-1/5 - Local Commission report on spot proceedings dated 18.05.2024 provided by the Local Commissioner to the Defendant.
6. Ex. DW-1/5 (Colly) -Delivery of the order dated 13.05.2024 to the Defendant by the Local Commissioner on dated 18.05.2024 at the premises of the Defendant.
7. Ex. DW-1/6 - Board Resolution passed by the directors of M/s Young ASR Private Ltd. on dated 18.05.2024 in favour of Sh.
Tanishq Jain.
8. Ex. DW-1/7 - Registration of trade application no. 6280388 status information dated 29.06.2024.
9. Ex. DW-1/8 &9 -Inventory sheet issued by Local Commissioners dated 18.05.2024 at the time of seizing the material.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 20 of 40
10. Ex. DW-1/10- Superdarinama dated 18.05.2024.
11. Ex. DW. 1/11 - Certificate U/s 63- BSA, 2023.
12. Ex. DW. /12 - Proof of service During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, DW-1 had stated that Defendant company was incorporated in October 2023 and he himself along with Ajay Malik and Surender Singh Rajpurohit were its promoter directors. He had come to know about Ajay Malik's prior employment with the Plaintiff Company after few days of the raid by Local Commissioner. However, he did not know the source from where he had acquired this knowledge. It was volunteered by him that when they were discussing the case with their lawyer, then a note about Ajay Malik had come from somewhere. He had stated that he had filed trademark registration application in respect of this trademark in his own name, since, as per his knowledge, the trademark could not be obtained in the name of a company and could only be taken by an individual. Since he did not remember, hence, he could not tell if the number of his trademark application was 6280388 in class 30. He did not know whether Ajay Malik had also applied for the registration of trademark in his name for the same trademark or not prior to his filing of the application. Ajay Malik was stated to have not filed any objections to his application and whatever he had stated during his cross-examination was correct as compared to contents of para 37 of his affidavit Ex. DW1/A. It was admitted by him that the Plaintiff was holding registration of trademark in its CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 21 of 40 favour prior to incorporation of his company as reflected in Ex. PW1/6 (colly). He did not know whether he had applied for registration of trademark in respect of whole of India or in respect of some particular State(s). It was admitted by him that defendant no. 1 had started using the trademark only after filing an application in this regard by him. He could have supplied his goods to other states as well, if his license would have permitted the same. He had no idea if the products of the Plaintiff were being sold in Kota and Bhilwada region of State of Rajasthan or not. He did not know about the area of operation of Plaintiff. He had stated that the price range of his product was Rs. 300-400 per kg and his product was cheaper than the other popular brands and they were sold in wholesale as well as in retail. His product wasn't getting sold with the identity of their trademark. He was not selling his goods online, though, he could have supplied goods and take orders on WhatsApp.
34. Thereafter Defendant's evidence was closed.
35. I have heard Sh. Sudarshan Bansal, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff as well as Sh. Varun Goswami, Ld. Counsel representing the defendants and have also gone through the written submission filed on record on behalf of Plaintiff.
36. Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff in response to the objections taken by the Defendant regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court was pleased to place reliance upon citation of our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as " M/s Jawahar Engineering Co. and Ors. Vs M/s Javahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd. ., 1983 SCC OnLine Del 41 : AIR 1984 Del 166: (1983) 24 CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 22 of 40 DLT 129 (DB) : 1983 PTC 207, dated 16.02.1983", wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold as under :-
" 10. There is another ground for holding that the Court has jurisdiction. S. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that a suit like the present can be filed wherever the cause of action wholly or partly arises. The plaintiff has prayed for an injunction regarding a threatened breach of a registered trade mark. The learned single Judge held that the Delhi Court does not have jurisdiction on the ground of any sale having been made in Delhi, but does have jurisdiction on account of the advertisement having appeared in the Trade Marks Journal. The real point which gives the Court jurisdiction is not the place where the advertisement has appeared, but the fact that the trade mark is sought for sale in Delhi amongst other places. Furthermore, when an injunction is sought, it is not necessary that the threat should have become a reality before the injunction and it can even be sought for a threat that is still to materialise.
11. An injunction being prohibitive in nature is intended to prevent some thing that is likely to happen. Once the plaintiffs have learnt that the defendants have applied for registration of trade mark in Delhi, they can claim an injunction to prevent any sale of the infringing product in Delhi. In this sense, the Court will have jurisdiction whether any sale in Delhi has taken place or not. In any case, as already stated, the decision is of a preliminary nature, once the exact scope of what the defendants intend to do is known, it is open to the Court to return the plaint. In that sense, it is not a final decision and is not open to appeal at the preliminary stage being not a final adjudication."
37. In their written submissions filed on record by the defendants, after discussing the pleadings of the parties, the defendants had argued that Plaintiff had miserably failed to prove CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 23 of 40 the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and thus the Court had rightly declined to grant it the temporary injunction in the suit.
It was also stated that despite directions of the Court and liberty granted to the Plaintiff, it had miserably failed to place on record the original documents in support of its claim as contended by it in its application moved u/o XI rule 1 (4) CPC. Not only this, but also, the Plaintiff had failed to place on record the true typed copies of the documents with proper margination.
It had also been stated that Plaintiff had failed to produce both the packagings on record showing their similarities or dissimilarities as the case might have been. It was stated that Plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants for filing the present suit before this Court and it had also not approached the Court with clean hands and was guilty of concealment and suppression of material facts. It was also contended that the color combination of both the products of Plaintiff as well as that of defendants was different in all respects and even they differed in their tag line as appearing on the top. Though the Plaintiff had claimed to have a cause of action in its favour to file the present suit before this Court, however, no document was either placed or proved on record by it showing that the products of defendants were available worldwide through interactive websites.
It was further contended that Plaintiff had miserably failed to make out a case that defendants had either offered or attempted to offer the sale of alleged infringed goods to the customers residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, hence, also the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was also stated CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 24 of 40 that there was no mis-representation or unfair competition initiated by the defendants with respect to the Plaintiff's products and goods.
38. In support of their arguments and contentions, the defendants had also relied upon the following citations :-
In "Indian performing rights society Ltd Vs Sanjay Dalia & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 10643-10644 of 2010, dated 01.07.2015, AIR 2015SC3479", wherein it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that cause of action was a bundle of facts which was required to be duly proved before granting a relief to the Plaintiff. Section 20 of CPC provided and conferred the territorial jurisdiction upon the Courts where the cause of action either wholely or in part had arisen and this fact had to be decided in each case based upon its own peculiar facts and circumstances. It was held further :-
"15.) Accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for a suit to be filed. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the plaintiff. Cause of action not only refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded. Section 20 of the CPC recognises the territorial jurisdiction of the courts inter alia where the cause of action wholly or in part arises. It has to be decided in each case whether cause of action wholly or in part arises at a particular place. As held by this Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India & Ors. [AIR 2001 SC 416]. Thus, a plaintiff can also file a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.
16.) ... ......this right to institute suit at such a place has to be read subject to certain restrictions, such as in case plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a particular place/having its head office and at such place cause of CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 25 of 40 action has also arisen wholly or in part, plaintiff cannot ignore such a place under the guise that he is carrying on business at other far flung places also. The very intendment of the insertion of provision in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is the convenience of the plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the parties has been given a statutory expression in section 20 of the CPC as well. The interpretation of provisions has to be such which prevents the mischief of causing inconvenience to parties.
Similarly, in "M/s Paridhi Udyog Vs Jagdev Raj Sarwan Ram Dhiman, CS (Comm) 313/2018, dated 29.04.2019, AIR OnLine 2019 DEL 950", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold as under :-
"13....Under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a corporation (which includes a company). First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office. In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office. Next is the case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office but cannot sue at the place of the subordinate office. The third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of section 134(2) and 62(2)) at the place of the principal office. The place of the principal office. The fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at the place of the principal office nor at the place of the subordinate office but at some CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 26 of 40 other place. In this case, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office and not at the place of the subordinate office. And, consequently, it could institute a suit at the place of its principal office but not at the place of its subordinate office. All these four cases are set out in the table below for greater clarity:
Judgments on Jurisdiction
17. The question of jurisdiction has been subject matter of several decisions of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and it can now be said that the law relating to jurisdiction is no longer res integra. It would be apt to note few landmark judgments on this issue. The Supreme court in Indian Performing Rights Society v Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161 has held as under:
"18. In our opinion, in a case where cause of action has arisen at a place where the Plaintiff is residing or where there are morethan one such persons, any of them actually or voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain would oust the jurisdiction of other place where the cause of action has not arisen though at such a place, by virtue of having subordinate office, the Plaintiff instituting a suit or other proceedings might be carrying on business or personally works for gain.
20. There is no doubt about it that the words used in Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 'notwithstanding anything contained in Code of Civil Procedure or any other law for the time being in force', emphasise that the requirement of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not have to be complied with by the Plaintiff if he resides or carries on business in the local limits of the court where he has filed the suit but, in our view, at the same time, as the provision providing for an additional forum, cannot be interpreted in the manner that it has authorised the Plaintiff to institute a suit at a different place other than the place where he is ordinarily residing or having principal office and incidentally where the cause of action CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 27 of 40 wholly or in additional forum and fundamental basis of conferring the right and advantage to the authors of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act provided under the aforesaid provisions.
23. ......The Legislature has never intended that the Plaintiff should not institute the suit where he ordinarily resides or at its Head Office or registered office or where he otherwise carries on business or personally works for gain where the cause of action too has arisen and should drag the Defendant to a subordinate office or other place of business which is at a far distant place under the guise of the fact that the Plaintiff /corporation is carrying on business through branch or otherwise at such other place also. If such an interpretation is permitted, as rightly submitted on behalf of the Respondents, the abuse of the provision will take place. Corporations and big conglomerates etc. might be having several subordinate offices throughout the country. Interpretation otherwise would permit them to institute infringement proceedings at a far flung place and at unconnected place as compared to a place where Plaintiff is carrying on their business, and at such place, cause of action too has arisen. In the instant cases, the principal place of business is, admittedly, in Mumbai and the cause of action has also arisen in Mumbai. Thus, the provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to confer jurisdiction on the Delhi court in the aforesaid circumstances to entertain such suits. The Delhi court would have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain it.
24. The avoidance of counter mischief to the Defendant is also necessary while giving the remedy to the Plaintiff under the provisions in question. It was never visualised by the law makers that both the parties would be made to travel to a distant place in spite of the fact that the Plaintiff has a remedy of suing at the place where the cause of action has arisen where he is having head office/carrying on business etc. The provisions of the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act provide for the authors/trade marks holders to sue at their ordinary residence or where they carry on their business. The said provisions of law never intended to be oppressive to the CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 28 of 40 Defendant. The Parliamentary Debate quoted above has to be understood in the manner that suit can be filed where the Plaintiff ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Discussion was to provide remedy to Plaintiff at convenient place; he is not to travel away. Debate was not to enable Plaintiff to take Defendant to farther place, leaving behind his place of residence/business etc. The right to remedy given is not unbridled and is subject to the prevention of abuse of the aforesaid provisions, as discussed above. Parliament never intended that the subject provisions to be abused by the Plaintiff by instituting suit in wholly unconnected jurisdiction. In the instant cases, as the principal place of business is at Mumbai the cause of action is also at Mumbai but still the place for suing has been chosen at Delhi. There may be a case where Plaintiff is carrying on the business at Mumbai and cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. Plaintiff is having branch offices at Kanyakumari and also at Port Blair, if interpretation suggested by Appellants is acceptable, mischief may be caused by such Plaintiff to drag a Defendant to Port Blair or Kanyakumari. The provisions cannot be interpreted in the said manner devoid of the object of the Act."
18. This Court in Ultra Home Constructions v Purushottam Kumar Chaubey 227 (2016) DLT 320, also had the occasion to deal with the question of jurisdiction. Taking note of the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in IPRS v Sanjay Dalia (supra), the division bench of the court summarized the law as under:
"13. It is evident from the above observations that the interpretation given to the expression "carries on business" in the context of a defendant under section 20 of the Code has also been employed in the context of a plaintiff under the said sections 134(2) and 62(2). Thus, in addition to the places where suits could be filed under section 20 of the Code, the plaintiff can also institute a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, as the case may be, by taking advantage of the provisions of section 134(2) or section 62(2), respectively. Both the latter provisions are in pari materia. Under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 29 of 40 corporation (which includes a company). First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office. In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office. Next is the case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office but cannot sue at the place of the subordinate office. The third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of section 134(2) and 62(2)) at the place of the principal office. the place of the principal office.
The fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at the place of the principal office nor at the place of the subordinate office but at some other place. In this case, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office and not at the place of the subordinate office. And, consequently, it could institute a suit at the place of its principal office but not at the place of its subordinate office. All these four cases are set out in the table below for greater clarity:
19. In a suit relating to the infringement of trademark, the Plaintiff can sue as per section 134 (2) of the Act in addition to the provisions relating to jurisdiction under CPC, 1908. As per section 134(2) of the Act, the residence or the place of business of the Plaintiff becomes an essential factor to determine the question of jurisdiction. In case the Plaintiff is carrying on business or personally works for gain at multiple locations, then if the Court s jurisdiction is invoked by virtue of having subordinate/ branch office, the Plaintiff would also have to show that cause of action for the suit has also arisen at such a place (Ref: See Serial No. 3 of the Table above). Plaintiff is entitled to institute a suit at a place other than where he ordinarily resides or has its principal office, CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 30 of 40 however for that the Plaintiff should be in a position to show that there is a branch/subordinate office and cause of action has also arisen within the jurisdiction of that Court.
20. The term "cause of action" has also been lucidly explained in Indian Performing Rights(supra) in the following words:
"15. Accrual of cause of action is a sine qua non for a suit to be filed. Cause of action is a bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the Plaintiff. Cause of action not only refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognises the territorial jurisdiction of the courts inter alia where the cause of action wholly or in part arises.
It has to be decided in each case whether cause of action wholly or in part arises at a particular place. As held by this Court in Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association v. Union of India and Ors.
[MANU/SC/0827/2000: AIR 2001 SC 416]. Thus, a Plaintiff can also file a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part arises."
21. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law relating to territorial jurisdiction of the Court as laid down by the Supreme Court, we now proceed to discuss the facts and the evidence brought on record relating to the question of jurisdiction. From the evidence brought on record, as noted in preceding paragraphs, it emerges that the Plaintiff has its principal place of business at Rajasthan. As a proprietor of the registered trademark, he has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for the infringement on the basis of carrying on business in Delhi. Although the Plaintiff satisfies the test of having a subordinate office in Delhi, however it has miserably failed to show that any cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. The pleadings and the evidence brought on record show that the cause of action has arisen at the Plaintiff's principal place of business i.e. at Rajasthan.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 31 of 40 Plaintiff in his cross examination has admitted that Plaintiff is manufacturing the goods (Plaster of Paris) exclusively in Rajasthan. Although the witness states that the goods are being supplied in Delhi, however he also admitted that he has not filed any invoice pertaining to Delhi. The witness further admitted that Plaintiff was not supplying goods in Delhi and the sale was through dealer network. The Plaintiff has also not been able to show any document which would indicate that the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff s mark within the jurisdiction of this Court. When the Defendant resolutely deposed that he is not selling any goods in Delhi, Plaintiff did not contradict or disprove his statement with any material or document. The suit was filed in 2009. Till date, Plaintiff has not been able to show any documentary evidence that would prove that Defendant s infringing activity was felt in Delhi. Thus, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. In the absence of any cause of action, Defendant cannot claim territorial jurisdiction based solely on the basis of the branch/subordinate office in Delhi.
In "INSTITUTE OF DIRECTORS VERSUS WORLDDEVCORP TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS (2023 SCC ONLINE DEL 7841), decided on 11.12.2023", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold as under :-
"28. ..... It is well settled that words of ordinary English usage cannot be monopolised. Else, the entire English language would be appropriated by a few, which can obviously not be permitted. There is, therefore, in Section 9(i) (a), an absolute proscription to registration of marks which are inherently lacking in distinctiveness, in that they are incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another. Words of common English usage fall within this category. It is only if the mark has attained secondary significance, by dint of continuous usage and is entitled, therefore, to the benefit of proviso to Section 9(1) that such a mark can be registered. Otherwise, words of common English usage, even when put together to form a phrase of common CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 32 of 40 English usage, cannot be registered. No monopoly can be claimed by the registrant of such a mark.
In "M/S Rspl Ltd. versus Mukesh Sharma & Anr., 2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 4285), decided on 03.08.2016", the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold as under :-
"29. 37... .....Failure to plead even a single material fact leads to an incomplete cause of action and incomplete allegations of such a charge are liable to be struck off under Order 6, Rule 16, Code of Civil Procedure. If the petition is based solely on those allegations which suffer from lack of material facts, the petition is liable to be summarily rejected for want of a cause of action.
38......... In short, all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action, are "material facts" which must be pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of sec. 83(1) (a)."
In "ULTRA HOME CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD VS. PURUSHOTTAM KUMAR CHAUBEY& ORS (2016 SCC ONLINE DEL 376), decided on 20.01.2016" the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to hold as under :-
"13. .........the expression "carries on business" in the context of a defendant under section 20 of the Code has also been employed in the context of a plaintiff under the said sections 134(2) and 62(2). Thus, in addition to the places where suits could be filed under section 20 of the Code, the plaintiff can also institute a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, as the case may be, by taking advantage of the provisions of section 134(2) or section 62(2), respectively. Both the latter provisions are in pari materia. Under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a corporation (which includes a company). CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 33 of 40 First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office. In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office. Next is the case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office but cannot sue at the place of the subordinate office. The third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of section 134(2) and 62(2) at the place of the principal office. The fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at the place of the principal office nor at the place of the subordinate office but at some other place. In this case, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office and not at the place of the subordinate office. And, consequently, it could institute a suit at the place of its principal office but not at the place of its subordinate office. All these four cases are set out in the table below for greater clarity."
39. Furthermore, in addition to the filing of written submissions on record, it had also been verbally argued before me by Sh. Sudharshan Bansal, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff that by not cross-examining the Plaintiff's witness, the Defendant is presumed to have conceded to the truth, varsity and authenticity of the allegations leveled against the defendants in the present suit.
On the quantum of damages, reliance was placed on Section 135(3) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which provided that the Court was empowered, not only to grant injunction in case of CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 34 of 40 infringement or passing off of a copyright but was also empowered to award damages or to account for the profits earned by the infringer with or without any order of delivery up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erosion of the same.
Reliance was also placed on document Ex. DW1/6 which was stated to be the certified true copy of Board Resolution of the Defendant Company passed in favour of its AR. Similarly, the Ld. Counsel had also relied upon Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/4 to show the distinctive features as similarities between the two marks belonging to the Plaintiff and the defendants respectively.
In order to show its prior existence much before the Defendant Company came into existence, reliance was placed upon Ex. PW1/5, which is the certificate of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company showing that it came into existence when the defendants' identity was even unknown and unheard of.
40. In rebuttal, Ld. Counsel for the Defendant had submitted that even if the PW-1 was not cross-examined by the Defendant, then also, it does not mean that the allegations leveled against the defendants stood proved ipso facto and still the Plaintiff's case was required to stand on its own legs and the Plaintiff was required to prove each and every factual averment and allegation leveled against the defendants in the present suit.
In the light of the aforesaid contentions, it was submitted that there was no evidence adduced on record by the CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 35 of 40 Plaintiff to show that the defendants had either ever supplied or were indulging in supplying their goods to customers in Delhi, much less in South Delhi.
In this regard, it was also stated that defendants' witness during his cross-examination had categorically stated that area of its business operation was in the State of Rajasthan only and it was not conducting its business through any interactive website nor any such transactions through any websites was ever placed or proved on record by the Plaintiff.
So far as the word "CHAMACH" used in the trade name of Plaintiff and defendants in respect of their respective products is concerned, same was stated to be a "generic" word which was quite popularly and frequently used in the industry dealing with tea and its related/allied products and lastly, it was submitted that Plaintiff had miserably failed to prove any actual damages or losses having suffered by it in view of the business activities conducted by the Defendant.
41. In rebuttal arguments, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff had drawn my attention to paras 44 and 45 of his plaint and the corresponding reply of defendants in their written statement and thus it was stated that no specific denial to the allegations contained in those paras was ever made by the defendants and hence, by virtue of provisions of order VIII rule 5 CPC, the defendants were presumed to have conceded to the correctness of those factual averments as contained in those paras by not making any specific denials to the same.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 36 of 40 Furthermore, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff had drawn my attention to the objections filed by the Defendants no. 3 to the registration application of Defendant no. 4, wherein the product dealt with by defendants was stated to be having a global presence as mentioned in para 9 of those objections and thus it was submitted that the product of defendants was also available within the territorial limits of South Delhi as well, conferring territorial jurisdiction upon this Court.
42. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival contentions and submissions of both the parties, my issue-wise findings are as under :-
(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction, as prayed? OPP Onus to prove this issue was upon the Plaintiff and PW-1 was not cross-examined on the aspect of its registration of Trademark. Not only this, but also, DW-1 during his cross-
examination had also admitted that the Plaintiff was holding the registration of trademark in its favour even prior to the incorporation of Defendant no. 1 company. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the Plaintiff had successfully discharged the onus of this issue and thus entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against the defendants. Issue is accordingly answered in affirmative and decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendants.
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 37 of 40
(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to delivery up of infringing material and decree for rendition of accounts, if so, from whom? OPP Onus to prove this issue was again upon the Plaintiff, however, the Plaintiff had not adduced any evidence on record to prove that it was also entitled to delivery up of infringing material as well as for rendition of accounts by placing on record any balance sheet showing the alleged losses/damages suffered by it due to the alleged infringing goods sold by the defendants within its territory of business operations. Hence, this issue is answered in negative and decided in favour of defendants and against the Plaintiff.
(iii) Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 1, 2 and 4.
Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants who had categorically stated in their examination-in-chief as well as it was also deposed by DW-1 during his cross-examination that they were not operating their business through any interactive website nor they were having any dealer or distributor to sell out their goods within the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi much less in South Delhi.
Although, the Plaintiff in its plaint as well as during deposition of PW-1 had made averments to this effect, however, in the absence of any cogent evidence adduced on record to substantiate those allegations, this allegation remained merely a lip service and the Plaintiff had miserably failed to prove on CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 38 of 40 record that defendants had either targeted or were attempting to target the particular customer segment of the Plaintiff within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court as held by Hon'ble Division Bench of our own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Banyan Tree Holding (P) Limited Vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., CS(s) No. 894/2008, decided on 23.11.2009, reported as 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 : (2010) 42 PTC 361"
Although defendants had not offered any cross- examination to PW-1, however, it was still incumbent upon the Plaintiff to have proved its case at least by preponderance of probabilities instead of merely doing a lip service in this regard.
Furthermore, it is not the presence of Plaintiff on interactive websites to conduct business which is important rather, it is the presence of the Defendant on interactive websites so as to raise a presumption about its reach to the customers residing within a particular territory, which is of prime importance to determine the territorial jurisdiction of a Court, thus I have no hesitation in holding that the defendants by raising this plea and the consequent failure of the Plaintiff to adduce any evidence in rebuttal had successfully discharged the onus of this issue, which is accordingly answered in affirmative and decided in favour of defendants and against the Plaintiff.
(iv) Whether the present suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD 1, 2 and 4 Onus to prove this issue was also upon defendants.
However, since the Plaintiff is the prior and registered owner of CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 39 of 40 Trademark in question, hence, it could not be held that Plaintiff did not have any cause of action to sue any person using same or deceptively similar trademark, trade name and trade dress as that of its own products. Hence, it could not be held that Plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants to file the suit, though may be before some other Court having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. The issue is thus answered in negative and decided in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendants.
(v) Relief.
In view of my findings given to issue no. 3 above, holding that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, same is directed to be returned to the Plaintiff in exercise of powers vested in this Court by virtue of u/o VII rule 10 CPC for its presentation before the Court having the said territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the same.
43. With these directions, the suit stands disposed of. File be consigned to record room after retaining self-attested copy of the pleadings, documents, order-sheets and evidence etc. on record.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
DATED:18.10.2025 LOKESH Digitally signed
by LOKESH
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.10.18
SHARMA 16:28:27 +0530
(Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
South/Saket/New Delhi
CS (COMM) 228/24 M/s Mehta Tea Private Limited Vs Young ASR India Private Limited 40 of 40