Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"6. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, it becomes clear that the point which requires resolution in this matter is what is the ratio of Dhodha House (supra) and whether Dhodha House (supra) in any way unsettles and what has been laid down in Jawahar Engineering (supra). For this purpose, it would be necessary to examine both these decisions in some detail.
7. I shall take up Jawahar Engineering (supra) first.
11. From the aforesaid extract, it becomes clear that the decision in the Jawahar Engineering (supra) was not disapproved by the Supreme court. It merely said that the decision has no application in the case before it. One of the reasons granted was that the application had not been filed in Delhi. Although the Supreme Court had noted that the office of the Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi exercised jurisdiction over the States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and National Capital Territory of Delhi, the Supreme Court categorically observed that in the case of Dhodha House no application at all had been filed whereas in the case of P.M. Diesels Ltd the Delhi office of the Registrar of Trade Marks had no jurisdiction as the parties were residents of Rajkot and the application for registration itself had been filed at Bombay. It is in this context that the Supreme court held that the decision in Jawahar Engineering (surpa) would not be applicable to the facts of the case before it. To make it clear, since the application for registration in the two cases before it had not been made within the territory of Delhi, the Supreme court found the decision in the case of Jawahar Engineering (wherein such an application was made in Delhi) to be inapplicable to the facts of the case before it. The ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Dhodha House (supra) therefore, in my view, is not that the filing of an application at the Registrar of Trade Marks at a particular place would not clothe courts at that place with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

The ratio is that an advertisement by itself in a Trade Mark Journal would not confer jurisdiction upon a court within whose territorial limits the advertisement is published or is seen. That ratio does not militate against what has been held in Jawahar Engineering (supra). 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)." (Emphasis Supplied)

38. The afore quoted observations of the learned single judge in Pfizer (supra) make it clear that the Jawahar Engineering(Supra) has not been overruled by the Apex court in Dhodha House and thus the same is still holding the field. The observations madein Pfizer(supra) in this context are time and again relied upon by this court and other court and finds approval of learned judges of this court very often.

39. If Jawahar Engineering(Supra) is the good law, then the observations made in Jawahar recognizing the threat proceedings and decision thereon not to return the plaint at the preliminary stage treating the threat as a mixed question of law are equally apposite to the present case too.