Territorial jurisdiction in trademark and copyright infringement was upheld on pleaded Indian manufacturing and packaging activity, with interim injunction confirmed.

Territorial jurisdiction in a trademark, copyright and passing off dispute was upheld because the plaint, read as a whole, alleged infringing manufacturing and packaging activity within India and stated that one plaintiff had its registered office in New Delhi; the Court treated the issue as mixed law and fact and held that these pleaded acts were sufficient at the interlocutory stage. Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 55(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 supported the jurisdictional basis. Finding the defendants' marks and packaging deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' marks, the Court held that a prima facie case for interim protection existed and confirmed the injunction, while rejecting vacation of injunction and return of plaint.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off where the defendants carried on the allegedly infringing manufacturing and packaging activity in India, and whether the interim injunction should be confirmed.

Analysis: Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 confers jurisdiction on the district court within whose local limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business, notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 55(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 also recognises use in India of a mark applied to goods to be exported. The Court held that the plea of territorial want of jurisdiction could not be decided by isolating one paragraph of the plaint, because the plaint as a whole alleged manufacturing and packaging activity in India, including at Mumbai, and alleged that Plaintiff No. 2 had its registered office in New Delhi. The question was treated as involving a mixed issue of law and fact, and the Court found that the alleged infringing acts within India were sufficient at the interlocutory stage to found jurisdiction. The Court also found that the defendants' marks and packaging were deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' marks and that a prima facie case for interim protection existed.

Conclusion: The Court upheld territorial jurisdiction, confirmed the interim injunction, and rejected the defendants' applications for vacation of injunction and return of plaint.

---