IPR Law- Infringement:
Export: Threats: Jurisdiction – The Delhi High Court held that if the
threat of infringement exists, then this court would certainly have
jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
It was also held that the
exporting of goods from a country is to be considered as sale within the
country from where the goods are exported and the same amounts to infringement
of trade mark.
In the present matter, the
defendant, by a master agreement, had sold and assigned the trade mark MAAZA
including formulation rights, know-how, intellectual property rights, goodwill
etc for India only. with respect to a mango fruit drink known as MAAZA.
In 2008, the defendant filed
an application for registration of the trade mark MAAZA in Turkey started
exporting fruit drink under the trade mark MAAZA. The defendant sent a legal
notice repudiating the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant,
leading to the present case. The plaintiff, the Coca Cola Company also claimed
permanent injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark and passing
off.
It was held by the court
that the intention to use the trade mark besides direct or indirect use of the
trade mark was sufficient to give jurisdiction to the court to decide on the
issue. The court finally granted an interim injunction against the defendant
(Bisleri) from using the trade mark MAAZA in India as well as for export
market, which was held to be infringement of trade mark
