Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. It was argued that after decision of the Division Bench, an order of ad-interim injunction was made, which subsists. That order has been appealed against. These facts were noticed by the Supreme Court, which consciously did not express itself on the effect of subsequent events. It was therefore, urged that these developments therefore, are fatal to the present application for rejection or return of the plaint.

18. It is next urged that since the defendants sought for registration of the trademark for the whole of the country, they also sought it for Delhi, and caused an advertisement to be issued. This was sufficient to clothe this court with jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the judgments reported as Jawahar Engineering Co &Ors -vs- Jawahar Engineering Pvt. Ltd AIR 1984 Del 166 and Pfizer Products Inc Vs. Rajesh Chopra 2006 (32) PTC 301.

19. In Dabur India Limited (supra) it was held that since the defendant was from Andhra Pradesh and since there was no documentary evidence to show that the respondent was selling its goods in Delhi, this Court did not have territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, in Dhodha House (a common judgment also rendered inter parties, the present suit, arising out of these proceedings), after noticing the decision in ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu, (1994) 4 SCC 711, had categorically held that a mere advertisement in a journal or paper by itself, will not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court. In that context it also observed that cause of action will arise only when the infringing goods are used not when an application for registration is made or pending. This is apparent from the following observations of the Supreme Court:

"...A cause of action will arise only when a registered trade mark is used and not when an application is filed for registration of the trade mark. In a given case, an application for grant of registration certificate may or may not be allowed. The person in whose favour, a registration certificate has already been granted indisputably will have an opportunity to oppose the same by filing an application before the Registrar, who has the requisite jurisdiction to determine the said question. In other words, a suit may lie where an infringement of trade mark or copyright takes place but a cause of action for filing the suit would not arise within the jurisdiction of the court only because an advertisement has been issued in the Trade Marks Journal or any other journal, notifying the factum of filing of such an application.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx In Patel Field Marshal (supra) again the thrust was on the sale of products and/or advertisement by the Appellant for registration of trade marks in the Trade Marks Journal and other local papers. The Division Bench of the High Court, as has been noticed hereinbefore, did not advert to the issue as to whether the defendant had been selling its product in Delhi on commercial scale or not. It is, therefore, not necessary for us also to dilate further on the said question. We have furthermore noticed hereinbefore that the advertisement appearing in a journal or newspapers by itself would not confer any jurisdiction on the court, if it otherwise did not have any..."