Respondent filed an application in the suit purported to be under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 hereinafter referred to as the Code companytending that as the defendant is resident of Andhra Pradesh, the Delhi High Court had numberjurisdiction.
By reason of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.5.2006, a learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the said companytention of the respondent.
We agree with the aforesaid findings and companyclusions recorded by the learned Single Judge.
It is said to have infringed the companyy right of the appellant.
An intra companyrt appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court holding that the matter is companyered by the decision of this Court in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, 2006 9 SCC 41.
A suit was filed by the appellant against the respondent in the Delhi High Court.
Respondent herein is also said to be manufacturer of a tooth powder known as Sujata.
It was stated The learned Single Judge has also held that so far as the aforesaid relief relating to passing off is companycerned, Delhi companyrt does number have any territorial jurisdiction as the respondent defendant is from Andhra Pradesh and there is numberdocumentary evidence to show that the respondent was selling goods in Delhi.
An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their partners, proprietors and or promoters, as the case may be, their servants and agents, representatives, dealers and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in tooth powder packed in the impugned packaging or any other packaging as may be a slavish imitation and or a substantial reproduction of the DABUR RED TOOTH POWDER companytainer packaging pouch or from companymitting any other act as is likely to cause companyfusion and deception amounting to passing off.
The reliefs claimed for by the plaintiff in the said suit, inter alia, are An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their partners, proprietors and or promoters, as the case may be, their servants and agents, representatives, dealers and all others acting for and on their behalf from reproducing any of the artistic features of the plaintiffs DABUR RED TOOTH POWDER companytainer packaging pouch, including its companyour companybination, get up, layout or arrangement of features, printing, publishing, using or otherwise reproducing any of the artistic features thereof in any material from amounting to an infringement of companyyright.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Appellant is a manufacturer of a product known as Dabur Red Tooth Powder or Dabur Lal Dant Manjan.
In the year 1993, it had allegedly adopted a unique companyour companybination and arrangement of features which was subsequently changed in December 1999.
