A', a resident of Delhi, files a suit at Delhi for infringement of Trade Mark by 'B', a resident of Mumbai, for using the Mark at Mumbai.

A', a resident of Delhi, files a suit at Delhi for infringement of Trade Mark by 'B', a resident of Mumbai, for using the Mark at Mumbai. Correct Answer The court at Delhi has jurisdiction only if 'A' does not have an office in Mumbai

Related Questions

In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
In the question below, are given a statement followed by three courses of actions numbered I, II and III. On the basis of the information given, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true, and then decide which of the following suggested courses of actions logically follow(s) for pursuing. Statement: Soon VAT 69 whiskey and Smirnoff Vodka will not be found on the shelves of Delhi Liquor stores owing to the duplication of barcode by manufacturer United Limited. The Delhi government financial commissioner blacklisted the manufacturer. Financial commissioner Anindo Majumdar had said in an order dated September 14, that USL had violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009 and Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 by using unauthorized and loose barcodes, which could be easily misused. Courses of action: I. The ban will force United Spirits Limited not to sell its liquor in the national capital for two years. II. the appellant violated provisions of the Delhi Excise Act, 2009, Delhi Excise Rules, 2010, the terms and conditions of the license issued to it and the standard operating procedure framed by the Delhi Excise Department and that consequently the department has rightly imposed the penalty of blacklisting under Rule 70 of the Delhi Excise Rules, 2010 upon United Spirits LTD (USL), Aurangabad. III. United Limited has been blacklisted by the Delhi government financial commissioner.
The question given below consists of a statement, followed by three arguments numbered I, II and III. You have to decide which of the arguments is/are ‘strong' arguments and which is/are ‘weak' arguments and accordingly choose your answer from the alternatives given below each question. Statement: The United States has launched what China calls the ‘largest trade war in economic history' and in its latest move targeted another $200 billion in Chinese export goods. The US-China spat is one of several trade fights picked by the protectionist President Donald Trump as his ‘America First' agenda disrupts trade relations among traditional allies. The growing share of international trade under threat has raised the prospect the escalating trade war could harm the global economy, shrinking investments and undermining supply chains. Why? Arguments: I. Several companies - including Total and Peugeot of France, and Russia's Lukoil - have said they are preparing to exit Iran ahead of US deadlines, the last of which is November 4. II. Trump argued the original deal from 2012 was lopsided in Seoul's favour but has also clouded the issue by appearing to link trade concessions to progress in his separate track of talks with nuclear-armed North Korea. III. Meanwhile, talks among the three NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) signatories, launched after Trump demanded an overhaul of the ‘terrible deal', have snagged notably owing to the US demands to increase American content installed in duty-free autos.