9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;2. The plaintiff/appellant in these appeals, is a company engaged in the manufacture of medicinal and pharmaceutical products. The Suit was filed for a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent/defendant from in any manner infringing the appellant's trade mark OLAMIN by manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale the defendant's products under 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 additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that there was only one bill produced by the plaintiff to substantiate their contention and the said medical shop from which the product was purchased, has not been made as a defendant in the Suit and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. It was further contended that the sale of a product within the jurisdiction of this Court is not sufficient to file the Suit for infringement of trademark and therefore, the plaint is liable to be rejected. 5. The plaintiff resisted the said Application by contending that it is sufficient if the trademark has been registered within the jurisdiction of this Court and the plaintiff's mark having been registered in the office of the Registrar of Trademark at Chennai, the Suit is mainta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orial 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 decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing off filed by the plaintiff is maintainable before this Court in the light of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act? 11. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant placed reliance on the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd., (supra), and contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the legal principle and the said decision answers the legal question and the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the Suit was not maintainable before this Court in the light of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act. The question which arose for consideration in the said decision is with regard to the interpretation of Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. Further, the Explanation to Section 20 C.P.C., has been added to the effect that Corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has subordinate office at such place. Thus, 'corporation' can be sued at a place having its sole or principal office and where cause of action wholly or in part, arises at a place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. After referring to the various decisions cited at the bar, it was held that the provisions of Section 62 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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., ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
