Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaint could be rejected at the threshold for want of cause of action, on the ground that the defendant was not the manufacturer, for absence of cash memos, and for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Analysis: The plaint disclosed a cause of action for passing off, infringement of copyright and rendition of accounts. At the stage of issuance of summons, the court was required to look only at the averments in the plaint. A suit of this nature is not confined to the manufacturer alone, but may lie against any party involved in the infringement chain. The absence of cash memos was not at that stage, particularly when clandestine sales are often made without such documents. The question of territorial jurisdiction also could not be decided finally without evidence and could be examined at a later stage.
Conclusion: The order rejecting the plaint was unsustainable and was set aside; the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaint alleging infringement and passing off cannot be rejected at the threshold where its averments disclose a cause of action, and issues such as the role of the defendant, proof of sales, and territorial jurisdiction are not conclusively determinable at the stage of summons.