Territorial jurisdiction in trademark suits requires pleaded facts showing future injury, not a bare quia timet assertion.

In a territorial jurisdiction challenge under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, the Delhi HC held that the plaint had to be examined only on its averments and on demurrer. Reading the plaint as a whole, the pleaded cause of action arose from the defendants' existing use of the impugned mark and label in Andhra Pradesh, while the reference to apprehended sales in Delhi was a bare assertion unsupported by facts. The Court held that a quia timet action requires a present, reasonable apprehension of future injury, which was not made out on the pleadings. No part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen in Delhi, so the plaint was liable to be returned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaint was liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, and whether the suit could be treated as a quia timet action based on apprehended infringement within Delhi.

Analysis: Objection to territorial jurisdiction at the stage of an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC has to be decided on the basis of the plaint averments alone and on demurrer. Reading the plaint as a whole, the cause of action pleaded was the defendants' existing use of the impugned mark and label in Andhra Pradesh, first noticed by the plaintiff in September 2013. The plaint did not substantiate any imminent or probable future launch in Delhi; the statement in the jurisdiction paragraph regarding apprehended sales in Delhi was a bald assertion without foundation in the pleaded facts. A quia timet action requires a present, reasonable apprehension of future injury, not a mere unsupported apprehension. The authorities relied upon by the plaintiff were distinguished on their facts because those cases involved pleaded apprehended injury with sufficient particulars or did not actually decide territorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The plaint was not a quia timet action on the pleaded facts, no part of the cause of action was shown to have arisen within Delhi, and the plaint was liable to be returned.

---