- (1.) This is a thoroughly unmeritorious appeal and a complete waste of time by a party who appears to have adopted the name or mark of the first respondent in connection with its business to ride on the reputation or goodwill thereof. Though the consideration in this appeal is restricted to whether this Court had the jurisdiction to receive the suit, we are constrained to make the observation in view of the most unreasonable and adamant conduct on behalf of the appellant before us.
(2.) The plaintiff instituted the action for infringement or, in the alternative, for passing-off by claiming that the appellant's use of the mark 'ITC' in connection with its banking business was an unfair use of the plaintiff's reputed mark 'ITC' and would result in tarnishing the reputation of the established mark. Paragraph 20 of the plaint claims that 'ITC' is registered "in various Classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999." It is, however, evident that no copy of any registration certificate pertaining to mark 'ITC' has been appended to the plaint. However, the assertion is there at paragraph 20 of the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the registered mark 'ITC'.
(3.) Section 134(2) of the 1999 Act borrows a principle that was recognised only by the Copyright Act among the intellectual property rights. Section 134(2), like Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, permits the owner of a trade mark to cite his residence or the place where he carries on business or works for gain to attract the jurisdiction of a Court to carry an action for infringement. There is no doubt that the plaintiff carries on business at its registered office at Virginia House at 37, Chowringhee, Kolkata- 700071. The registered office of the plaintiff is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court exercising its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.;