Territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits requires a real cause of action; isolated Delhi dispatches were held insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act was rejected where the plaint did not show the plaintiff's business presence in Delhi by office, residence, or pleaded commercial activity through a licensee or distributor. The invoices relied on showed only isolated dispatches of goods to Delhi and did not establish that the defendant was carrying on business there or that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within the forum. A mere availability of goods or a trivial, incidental link with Delhi was held insufficient to confer jurisdiction. The objection to territorial jurisdiction was sustained, and the suit was held not maintainable in Delhi.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable in Delhi on the basis of territorial jurisdiction under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether the pleaded facts and documents disclosed that any part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: The plaint did not disclose any business presence of the plaintiff in Delhi by office, residence, or pleaded commercial activity through a licensee or distributor within jurisdiction. The material on record, including the invoices relied upon, at best showed isolated dispatches of goods to Delhi and did not establish that the defendant was carrying on business in Delhi or that a substantial part of the cause of action arose there. A mere availability of goods or a trivial and incidental connection with Delhi was held insufficient to confer jurisdiction. On the material before it, the Court declined to treat the suit as maintainable on the basis urged by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was sustained, and the suit was not maintainable in Delhi.

---