Judgment :- 1. This revision is directed against the finding on issue No. 2 in O.S.2 of 1986 of District Court, Trivandrum. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. 2. The suit has been filed under S.105 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The plaintiff is an institution by name "Santhigiri Ashram" represented by its secretary. The allegation in the plaint is that 'Santhigiri Ashram" was founded about 25 years ago for the uplift and spiritual development of men. It is a registered organisation having its branch Ashrams at Palarivattom, Kallar and Sultan Battery. The important activity of the plaintiff is in the medical field and medicines are manufactured and patients are treated both as inpatients and outpatients. "Santhigiri" is the Trade Mark designed by the plaintiff for the last more than 8 years in the medical field. The plaintiff further alleges that on 2-2-1986, the defendants published as advertisement in Kerala Kaumudi daily that an institution in the name and style "Santhigiri Health Complex" would be inaugurated by a Minister. The use of the word "Santhigiri" was done with malicious intention of passing off their institution, service and products as that of the plaintiffs and therefore it violated the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The plaintiff states in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit has arisen when an attempted passing off was made by publishing the notice on 2-2-1986 in Kerala Kaumudi and continuously thereafter. 2. The respondents contest the suit and amongst other contentions, they also stated that the District Court, Trivandrum has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. According to the defendants their institution "Santhigiri Health Complex" is within the jurisdiction of Ernakulam District Court and the Trivandrum Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit relating to passing off action. 3. The jurisdiction of the court for the purpose of passing off action or infringement of Trade Marks is governed by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code read with S.105 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. As per S.20 of the CPC, the plaintiff has the option to institute suit either (1) where the cause of action has accrued or (2) in the forum of the defendant, i.e., where the defendant resides, or carries on business personally works for gain. This alternative is further clarified in the illustration to S.20 of the CPC. As per S.20 of the CPC, the plaintiff has the option to institute suit either (1) where the cause of action has accrued or (2) in the forum of the defendant, i.e., where the defendant resides, or carries on business personally works for gain. This alternative is further clarified in the illustration to S.20 of the CPC. The present suit was instituted before the District Court, Trivandrum by virtue of the S.105 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and also on the basis that cause of action bad arisen by the publication of the advertisement in the Kerala Kaumudi daily on 2-2-1986. The defendants asserted that no cause of action bad been arisen by the publication of the notice and even in suit relating to passing off action, the suit should have been filed before District Court, Ernakulam since the defendants carry on business and sell their service and products at Kalamassery. 4. A "cause of action" means any fact, which if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his rights to a judgment of the Court. It is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right of relief against the defendant. It amounts to some acts done by the defendant and on the basis of it plaintiff asks the court to arrive at a conclusion is his favour. It was contended on behalf of the plaintiff that in a suit relating to passing off action the advertisement itself may give rise to a cause of action. 5. The concept of passing off which is a form of tort has undergone changes in the course of its evolution. At first it was restricted to the representation of one person's goods as those of another Later it was extended to business and services. Subsequently it was further extended to professions and non-trading activities. Today it is applied to many forms of unfair trading and unfair competition where the activities of one person cause damage or injury to the goodwill associated with the activities of another person or group of persons. 6. The advertisement itself can give rise to cause of action. In order to find out this, the pleadings in the plaint alone can be considered. 6. The advertisement itself can give rise to cause of action. In order to find out this, the pleadings in the plaint alone can be considered. Whether the advertisement had the effect of passing off or whether it was only intended to convey the news regarding inauguration of the institution are matters to be decided in the suit. According to the plaintiff defendants by making the advertisement have committed a passing off action. The essential characteristics which must be present in order to create a valid cause of action for passing off as stated by Lord Diplock in Erven Warnink B.V. and Another v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. and Another (1980) RPC. 31 at 93 are "(1) misrepresentation, (2) made by a person in the course of trade, (3) to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods and services supplied by him, (4) which is calculated to injure the business or good will of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence) and (5) which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so" 7. Going by the allegation is the plaint the advertisement effected by the defendant and using of the word "Santhigiri" may amount to misrepresentation intended to lure away the prospective customers or ultimate consumers of goods or service supplied by the plaintiff and thus it would injure the good will and business. This is a fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to merit judgment in his favour. 8. The court below was of the view that the whole business is being conducted by the defendant within the jurisdiction of Ernakulam Court and therefore the District Court, Trivandrum has no territorial jurisdiction. This is incorrect and liable to be set aside. I hold that District Court, Trivandrum has got jurisdiction to try the suit in view of S.20 of Civil Procedure Code read with S.105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The finding under issue No. 2 is set aside and the order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court is vacated. The court below is directed to take the plaint in file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The CRP. The finding under issue No. 2 is set aside and the order returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court is vacated. The court below is directed to take the plaint in file and dispose of the same in accordance with law. The CRP. is disposed of as above. No costs.