Delhi High Court Dismisses Trademark Infringement Suit Due to Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

The Delhi High Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for trademark infringement filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to substantiate business operations or cause of action in Delhi, rendering the claims unsupported. Despite the defendant's trademark registration application in Delhi, it was deemed irrelevant to establish jurisdiction. As a result, the suit was dismissed solely on the basis of lack of territorial jurisdiction, without delving into the case's merits.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Summary:

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court

The primary issue addressed was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts against the defendant for alleged trademark infringement of "Shyam Surti."

The plaintiff argued that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction u/s 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and u/s 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, claiming both parties were carrying on business in Delhi and that the defendant had applied for trademark registration in Delhi. The plaintiff also contended that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence.

The defendant countered that mere application for trademark registration in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction and that no documentary evidence was provided to show business operations in Delhi. The defendant emphasized that both parties were primarily operating in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, and no cause of action arose in Delhi.

The Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act, alongside Section 20 of the CPC, which allows suits to be filed where the defendant resides or where the cause of action arises. The Court referred to precedents, including *Dhodha House vs. S.K. Maingi* and *Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr.*, to clarify that the plaintiff must show substantial business operations or cause of action in the jurisdiction claimed.

The Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of business operations or cause of action in Delhi. The plaintiff's claims were deemed vague and unsupported by material evidence. The application for trademark registration in Delhi by the defendant was found irrelevant to establishing jurisdiction.

The Court also addressed the procedural aspect, noting that the issue of jurisdiction was agreed to be treated as a preliminary issue by both parties and could be decided without requiring additional evidence.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court ruled that it did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Consequently, the suit was dismissed on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction without addressing the merits of the case.

---