Territorial jurisdiction in infringement suits turns on pleaded facts and statutory conditions; mere trade mark filing in Delhi is insufficient.

Territorial jurisdiction for a suit alleging infringement and passing off depends on whether part of the cause of action arose in Delhi or whether the statutory jurisdictional conditions under the Trade Marks Act, the Copyright Act, or Section 20 CPC were met. The court held that Sections 134 and 62 provide an forum but do not dispense with the need to establish jurisdictional facts. On the pleaded material, there was no showing of business activity in Delhi, sale of the impugned goods there, or any jurisdictional effect from filing a trade mark application in Delhi. The issue was treated as a pure question of law on admitted pleadings and could be decided as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC; the suit lacked territorial jurisdiction and was liable to dismissal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit for infringement and passing off, and whether that question could be decided as a preliminary issue without evidence.

Analysis: The pleadings were examined to see whether any part of the cause of action arose within Delhi or whether the plaintiff or defendants carried on business there. Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provide an additional forum to the plaintiff, but they do not dispense with the requirement that jurisdiction must be founded on the statutory conditions or on Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court found that the plaintiff had produced no material showing business activity in Delhi, no material showing sale of the alleged infringing goods in Delhi, and no material showing that mere filing of a trademark application in Delhi created jurisdiction. The issue was held to be a pure question of law on the admitted pleadings and thus capable of decision as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Conclusion: The court held that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the suit was liable to be dismissed.

---