Territorial jurisdiction in trade mark disputes depends on an actual cause of action, not merely the registry's location.

Territorial jurisdiction was not made out because the plaint did not show that either party carried on business or marketed the goods within the Court's local limits. The mere presence of the trade mark registry at Chennai was insufficient to create a cause of action, and no material linked the registry to the dispute. The certificate of registration was also not shown to have been issued by the Madras registry. On the pleadings, the alleged infringement and the parties' business activity were connected with Hyderabad, not Chennai, so no part of the cause of action arose within the forum's jurisdiction and leave could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether any part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court so as to justify the grant of leave and sustain the suit.

Analysis: The plaint did not disclose that either party carried on business or marketed the goods within the jurisdiction of the Court. The only basis pleaded for jurisdiction was that the trade mark registry was located at Chennai, but the location of the registry by itself did not constitute a cause of action. No material was produced to show any nexus between the Chennai registry and the dispute, and the certificate of registration was not shown to have been issued by the Madras registry. On the pleadings, the alleged infringement and the parties' business activity were connected with Hyderabad, not with Chennai. In these circumstances, no part of the cause of action was established within the local limits of the Court.

Conclusion: The revocation of leave was and the suit could not be maintained in that forum.

---