TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1739
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the name and style of OLMIN or any other deceptively similar name and for a permanent injunction from in any manner manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale their product OLMIN or similar sounding names in the course of their business and pass off their products using the trademark OLAMIN or with additions as and for the goods of the plaintiff and for a mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to surrender all the infringing products, packing materials, labels, etc., in the market to the plaintiff for destruction. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant company is carrying on business in the same field and have copied and infringing their registered mark OLAMIN and that during May 2011, the marketing agents of the plaintiff found that the defendant is also releasing their goods being the same pharmaceutical preparations under the same trade mark OLMIN thereby causing confusion in the market and the sale effected by the defendant amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's mark. 4. The defendant on receipt of notice in the Suit filed an Application in A.No.637 of 2014, under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC to rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff contended that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act provides only an inclusive definition for District Court and only provides for an additional place of suing for the plaintiff in the cases of infringement in addition to the usual jurisdiction available under the Code of Civil Procedure and not in derogation thereof. It was further contended that the specific case of the plaintiff is that the infringement took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff had produced a purchase bill to establish the same and it is not necessary to produce bunch of bills and in any event, this is a matter which should be decided at the time of trial. Further, it is submitted that the finding rendered by the Court that the plaintiff should carry on business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to file the Suit is completely against law and is an incorrect interpretation of law. Further, it is submitted that the decision relied on by the learned Single Judge have no relevance to the facts of the case. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstituted by the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that considering the very language of Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, an additional forum has been provided by including a District Court within whose limits the plaintiff actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain that the object of the provisions was to enable the plaintiff to institute a Suit at a place where he or they resided or carried on business, not to enable them to drag defendant further away from such a place. Further, with regard to the expression notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure contained in Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act and Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, it was pointed out that the same does not oust the applicability of the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is clear that additional remedy has been provided to the plaintiff so as to file a suit where he is residing or carrying on business etc; as the case may be, that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to file a suit where the defendant resides or where ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stice SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, The Chief Justice) was a party. The two questions, which were framed and referred to the Larger Bench in the light of the conflict of views, were:- (i) whether the situs of the Trade Mark Registry in Chennai and the name being on its register would itself give rise to cause of action to institute a Suit in the Madras High Court? (ii) Whether the Principles of Forum Conveniens or analogous principles apply to consideration of an Application for leave to sue under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent in case part of cause of action arises at Chennai? 13. While answering the second question, the Full Bench took note of the following decisions:- (i) Horlicks Ltd., and Anr., vs. Heinz India (P) Limited, reported in 2010 (42) 156 PTC (Delhi) (DB); (ii) Abdul Gafur and Anr., vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors., reported in (2008) 10 SCC 97; (iii) India TV Independent News vs. India Broadcast Live & Ors., reported in 2007 (35) PTC 177(Del); (iv) Brooke Bond (India) Limited vs. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt., Ltd., reported in 1993 (2) MLJ 132; (v) Marico Industries Limited and Anr., vs. Sarfaraj Trading Com....