JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD. vs MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 801/2023 & I.A. Nos. 1741/2024, 31224/2024, 31225/2024, 31226/2024 & 1880/2025 JOHNSON & JOHNSON PTE. LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Ms. Nancy Roy with Mr. Lalit Alley and Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Advocates. (M): 9899257363 Email: [email protected] versus MR. ABBIREDDI SATISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Kishore Babu Manne, Advocate for defendant nos. 1 to 6. 8610374697 Email: [email protected] Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for defendant no. 2 and 5. (M): 8096321409 Email: [email protected] CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA JUDGMENT % 04.02.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J: I.A. No. 31224/2024 (Application on behalf of defendant no. 1 for rejection of the plaint) 1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1 seeking rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“CPC”) read with Section 151, CPC, on the ground that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction, as there is no cause of action in Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 801/2023 Page 1 of 23 By:AMAN UNIYAL Signing Date:04.02.2025 17:15:00 2. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 134(1) read with Sections 27 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Trademarks Act”), read with Section 20 (c) of the CPC, seeking permanent and mandatory injunction restraining passing off and infringement by the defendants with the use of a deceptively similar mark, “ORSI” and deceptively similar packaging/trade dress, to that of plaintiff, i.e., “ORS-L”/ “ORSL”/ / / / (“ORSL marks and trade dress”) under which the plaintiff manufactures and sells electrolyte drinks. 3. The facts, as canvassed in the plaint, are as follows: 3.1 Plaintiff-company was founded in