Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

84. Furthermore the Division Bench of this Court in its pronouncement in Dhodha House (supra) has held that Section 34 of the Trademarks Act provides an additional forum, over and above the forum, provided by the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In 2003(26) PTC 239 Lalli Enterprises v. Karamchand and Sons, the Court noticed that an objection to the maintainability of a case on territorial jurisdiction in a given case required evidence to be led.

85. In 1983 PTC 207 Jawahar Engineering Co. v. Jawahar Engineers P. Ltd., a Division Bench of this Court held that a mere application by a defendant to register a trade mark in Delhi would be sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the court. The court held that "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". The court further held that "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." This case was cited with approval by another Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in 1998 PTC 260 P.M. Diesels Ltd. v. Patel Field Marshal Industries.

86. It is noteworthy that the P.M. Diesel case was considered and distinguished from the Jawahar Engineering case by the Supreme Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi and Patel Field Marshal Industries v. P.M. Diesel Ltd.

87. In this behalf it would be used to consider the pronouncement of this Court reported at 127 (2006) DLT 783 Pfizer Products, Inc. v. Rajesh Chopra while considering the decision of the Supreme Court decision in the Dhodha House case observed that "the decision in the Jawahar Engineering (supra) was not disapproved by the Supreme Court." It was held that ratio laid down by the Supreme Court "does not militate against what has been held in Jawahar Engineering (supra)." This Court observed that therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the defendants are not tenable and I find that the decision in the case of Jawahar Engineering (supra) covers the present case which has not been unsettled by the Supreme Court in Dhodha House (supra)?.