Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 NOVEMBER 2021

Case Analysis: P. Sundaram v. Asia Match Company

Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys
Explore more from Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys

This interim order on the issue of whether the respondent, based on the location of their branch office, can maintain the present suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Court...

IndiaIntellectual Property

This interim order on the issue of whether the respondent, based on the location of their branch office, can maintain the present suit within the territorial jurisdiction of the present Court, i.e., a question on the issue of the jurisdiction of the commercial division. The case originally was filed by Respondents in this case who are plaintiffs in the original suit.

The Respondent's main claim in the present application is that their trademark and copyright were being infringed by the applicants (Defendants in the original suit). The respondents were of the observation that the applicant was passing off under a deceptive similarity of his label to that of the respondent's original label. The applicant, however, hitting the angle of incorrect territorial jurisdiction in the original case has made an attempt to strike down the case of the Respondents. The applicant's claim was that the Respondents have wrongly claimed the territorial jurisdiction of the instant Court

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from