Jurisdiction issue: Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction, suit returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC

The court concluded that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh, not Delhi. The court determined that the suit was not a quia timet action based on future harm but focused on the present use of the trademark by the defendant. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, returning the plaint. Further proceedings were scheduled for 13.02.2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction of the court.
2. Quia timet action and apprehension of future harm.
3. Infringement of trademark and copyright.
4. Passing off and deceptive similarity.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction of the Court:
The primary issue was whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to try the present suit. The plaintiff argued that the cause of action arose in Delhi because the plaintiff's office was located in Delhi and there was a reasonable apprehension that the defendant might launch their products in Delhi. The defendant, however, contended that the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh, where the alleged infringing activities occurred, and hence, the Delhi High Court did not have jurisdiction.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in *Indian Performing Rights Society Limited v. Sanjay Dalia and Another* and the Division Bench's decision in *Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors.*, which state that the jurisdiction lies where the cause of action arises, particularly if the plaintiff has a subordinate office at that place.

2. Quia Timet Action and Apprehension of Future Harm:
The plaintiff argued that the suit was a quia timet action, based on the apprehension that the defendant might launch their product in Delhi. The court examined the averments in the plaint to determine if it was indeed a quia timet action.

The court explained that a quia timet action is preventive in nature, intended to prevent anticipated mischief rather than redress a wrong that has already occurred. The court noted that the plaintiff's grievances were based on the present use of the trademark "Smart Choice" by the defendant in Andhra Pradesh, not on any apprehended future use in Delhi.

3. Infringement of Trademark and Copyright:
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's trademark "Smart Choice" was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark "Officer's Choice" and that the defendant's label was a substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's label. The plaintiff sought a decree of permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trademark and copyright.

The court observed that the principal grievance in the plaint was the current use of the trademark and label by the defendant, discovered in Andhra Pradesh in 2013. The court emphasized that the plaint did not indicate any apprehension of future use but was based on the existing use of the trademark.

4. Passing Off and Deceptive Similarity:
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's use of the trademark "Smart Choice" and the label was intended to confuse consumers and pass off the defendant's products as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's actions were causing harm to the plaintiff's business and reputation.

The court noted that the cause of action, as described by the plaintiff, stemmed from the use of the trademark and label by the defendant in Andhra Pradesh. The court found that the averments in the plaint did not support the claim of apprehended future harm in Delhi.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the plaint was not a quia timet action based on apprehended future harm but was predicated on the present use of the trademark by the defendant. The court held that the Delhi High Court did not have territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Consequently, the court allowed the application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC and ordered the plaint to be returned. The case was listed for further proceedings on 13.02.2017.

---