1998 (3) TMI 696 - HC - Companies Law

Delhi High Court Asserts Jurisdiction in IP Dispute, Reinstates Injunction Application

P.M. Diesels Ltd. Versus M/s. Patel Field Marshal

The Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction based on the Copyright Act, trademark registration in Delhi, and sale of goods in Delhi. Pecuniary ... - Issues Involved:1. Territorial Jurisdiction2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction3. Grant of Temporary InjunctionIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Territorial Jurisdiction:The plaintiff claimed that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction based on three counts: (a) Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, (b) the defendants sought registration of the trademark for sale in Delhi, and (c) the goods under the impugned mark were sold in Delhi. The defendants contended that both parties resided and worked in Rajkot, and no sale was effected within the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court.The court noted that jurisdiction depends on the allegations made in the plaint, not the defense. It can examine pleadings, affidavits, documents, and other materials to form a prima facie opinion on jurisdiction. The court referred to the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Reward Soap Works, where it was held that the court could grant injunctions for both trademark and copyright infringement if it had jurisdiction over the copyright claim. The court found that there was a specific averment in the plaint that goods bearing the impugned trademark were sold in Delhi, and the defendants violated the plaintiff's statutory rights under the Copyright Act.The court also referred to M/s. Jawahar Engineering Co. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Jawahar Engineering Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that the court had jurisdiction if the trademark was sought for sale in Delhi, even if no sale had taken place yet. The court concluded that the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction based on the first two counts and did not need to delve into the third count of actual sales in Delhi.2. Pecuniary Jurisdiction:The plaintiff valued the relief for rendition of accounts at Rs. 200 for court fees and Rs. 5,01,000 for jurisdictional purposes, promising to pay additional fees once the exact amount was ascertained. The single judge had dismissed the suit for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, valuing it at Rs. 1,000. However, the court referred to the Division Bench decision in Fenners India Ltd. Vs. Salbros Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., which held that for unsettled accounts, a fixed court fee is payable, and the suit can be valued as per the plaintiff's valuation. The court concluded that it had pecuniary jurisdiction.3. Grant of Temporary Injunction:The single judge dismissed the application for a temporary injunction, holding that the court lacked territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Since the appellate court found that the Delhi High Court had both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction, it set aside the single judge's decision. The court directed that the application for a temporary injunction (I.A. 4465/89) be considered on merits. The interim order dated 30th June 1989, which had continued during the appeal, was to remain in effect until the disposal of the application.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the judgment under challenge was set aside. The Delhi High Court was found to have both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The application for a temporary injunction would now be considered on its merits, and the interim order would continue until its disposal. The parties were to bear their own costs.