Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle products in Shabbir Medical Hall vs Mohammed Naseer on 26 February, 2010Matching Fragments
(i)1977 (1) MLJ 286 (S.B.S.JAYAM & CO. V. KRISHNAMOORTHY, PROPRIETOR, GOPI CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES);
(ii)1977 TLNJ 214 (HAROLD CHARLES PINTO V. HILDA MENERES);
(iii)This Court's decision in AMRUTANJAN LTD. V. MEHTA UNANI PHARMACY in A.NO.4924 OF 1979 IN C.S.NO.658 OF 1979;
(iv)This Court's decision in AMRUTANJAN LTD. V. ASHWIN FINE CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS IN C.S.NO.74 OF 1982;
(v)AIR 1972 SC 1359 (PARLE PRODUCTS P. LTD. V. J.P. & CO., MYSORE);
(vi)2004 (1) CTMR 86 (MIDAS HYGIENE INDUSTRIES P. LTD. AND ANOTHER V. SUDDIN BHATIA AND OTHERS);
(iv)The right of interest in a trademark can only be a movable property and where the infringement has taken place partly in one jurisdiction by way of advertisement and partly in another jurisdiction by marketing the product, then the registered owner of the trademark can maintain the suit at the place where the cause of action has arisen partly or wholly which includes place of jurisdiction, advertisement or marketing.
12.Contrary to the above contentions, it is contended by the respondent's side that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and hence, leave granted was rightly revoked. In order to substantiate their contention, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this Court reported in 2007 (35) PTC 542 (MAD) (PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. V. SURYA FOOD & AGRO LTD.) and 2007 (35) PTC 774 (AUSTIN REED LIMITED V. SUNTEX GRAMENTS AND OTHERS).
(i) It has been held in a case reported in 2007 (35) PTC 542 (MAD) (PARLE PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. V. SURYA FOOD & AGRO LTD.) as follows:
"16.If there is nothing to show that sales have taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, then leave cannot be granted. There is no other circumstance, which justifies the filing of the suit, within the jurisdiction of this Court because both the respondent and the applicant carry on business elsewhere. Therefore, not only on the ground of forum convenience, but also because the applicant prima facie has failed to establish to the satisfaction of this Court that sales had in fact taken place within the jurisdiction of this Court, leave must be revoked."