Delhi High Court
Advance Magazine Publishers Inc ... vs M/S Just Lifestyle Pvt Ltd on 9 July, 2015
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 2157/2009 & IAs No.343-44/2010, 5440/2010,
6308/2010, 12342/2010 and 4864/2012
ADVANCE MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS INC AND ANR..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Sunil Wadhwa, Advocate
versus
M/S JUST LIFESTYLE PVT LTD ..... Defendant
Through: Ms. Manmeet Arora, Advocate with
Mr. Apoorv P. Tripathi and Ms. Chand Chopra,
Advocates for the defendant.
Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Advocate for the applicant
in I.A. 4864/2012.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
ORDER
% 09.07.2015
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant
for permanent injunction praying inter alia that they be restrained
from infringing their trademark, for passing off, dilution of trademark
etc.
2. Counsel for the defendant No.1 states that after entering
appearance, she had filed the written statement, wherein one of the
preliminary objections taken by the defendant No.1 was that this Court
is not vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present
suit. Subsequently, vide order dated 04.03.2010, fourteen issues were
framed and the first issue with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of
this Court was taken up for arguments in the first instance.
Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under Order VI Rule 17
CPC for seeking amendment of the plaint, registered as I.A.
6309/2010, which was heard and allowed vide order 18.11.2011.
While allowing the said application, M/s Priority Marketing Pvt. Ltd.
was permitted to be impleaded as defendant No.2.
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendant No.1 had filed
an intra court appeal, registered as FAO(OS)36/2012 that was allowed
by the Division Bench vide order dated 09.01.2013 and the impugned
order dated 18.11.2011 was set aside. The plaintiff had challenged the
decision of the Division Bench by filing an appeal before the Supreme
Court, registered as C.A. 4912/2015.
4. Counsels for the parties state that the aforesaid appeal was
heard and decided by the Supreme Court alongwith Civil Appeal
No.10643-10644/2010 entitled Indian Performing Rights Society
Ltd. vs. Sanjay Dalia and Anr. Vide judgment dated 01.7.2015, the
Supreme Court had dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and held that the
Delhi Courts would not have the territorial jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present suit. It was observed that the principal place of
business of the plaintiff being in Mumbai and the cause of action
having arisen in Mumbai, provisions of Section 62 of the Copyright Act
and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act could not confer jurisdiction on
the Delhi courts.
5. In this background, counsel for the plaintiff requests that the
plaint be returned to hum for being presented before the competent
court vested with the territorial jurisdiction, namely, the Bombay High
Court.
6. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the name of the
defendant No.2 is directed to be deleted from the array of defendants
and IA No.4846/2012, an application filed by the said defendant, for
being dropped from the proceedings is allowed.
7. The plaint is directed to be returned to the plaintiff for being
presented before the Bombay High Court.
8. As both the parties are present, it is deemed appropriate to fix a
date for the appearance of the parties before the Bombay High Court.
With the consent of the parties, they are directed to appear before the
Bombay High Court on 07.8.2015.
9. The suit is disposed of, along with the pending applications.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JULY 09, 2015
rkb/sk
