Mere Advertising Of Products In Delhi Does Not Create Jurisdiction For Trial Courts To Entertain Trademark Infringement Suit: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that merely because the defendant advertised its products during the course of business in the national capital, cannot mean that the trial court here would have jurisdiction to entertain a plaintiff's suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

Justice Navin Chawla made the observation while setting aside a decree passed by Additional District Judge of Tis Hazari Courts in a suit filed by manufacturer of sweets and namkeens restraining two individuals from using the plaintiff's trademark 'HARI RAM AND SONS & HR LOGO'.

The suit was filed by proprietors of M/s. Hari Ram and Sons alleging that the defendants adopted the same trademark for similar business.

Challenging the trial court order, cross appeals were filed in the High Court by both the parties.

The defendants were aggrieved as the trial court, having categorically held that it does not have territorial jurisdiction to try the suit, could not have proceeded to decree the same in the favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the plaintiff was aggrieved by the trial court finding on the issue of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that there was an admission of the defendants in the suit regarding soliciting customers in the national capital which was within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. It was added that no further proof was required to be furnished by the plaintiff to invoke the trial court's territorial jurisdiction.

Finding the submission as untenable, Justice Chawla opined that a wholistic reading of the defendants' written statement showed that they had explicitly stated that their business activities were confined exclusively to Uttar Pradesh, more particularly to Prayagraj city, and that they had no business activities in Delhi.

"Clearly therefore, it was the assertion of the defendants that the advertisements, both in print as also electronic media, were targeted to customers in the State of Uttar Pradesh. In my opinion, such an advertisement cannot vest jurisdiction in a Court located at Delhi, as the said advertisements were not intended for the customers at Delhi," the court said.

It added: "Merely because in the course of their business, the defendants in the suit have advertised their products in the print as also electronic media, which may have a spill over circulation in Delhi (which also has not been proved by the plaintiff in the present case), it cannot be said that the learned Trial Court at Delhi would gain jurisdiction to entertain the suit of trade mark infringement and passing off against the defendants in the suit."

It was thus concluded that the proper course open to the trial court was to return the plaint to the plaintiff to file the same before a court having competent jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction was taken by the defendants at an initial stage and trial court answered the same in their favour.

The trial court, having held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, could not have proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff in the suit, the court observed while returning the plaint to plaintiff for filing it before a court of competent jurisdiction.

Title: VIVEK PURWAR AND ANR. v. HARI RAM AND SONS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1067

Click Here To Read Order