Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd in Delhi High Court, claiming Veda infringed its registered marks TADAAKHA and SADANAND, and common law mark BASANT, by using similar marks like VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD for cotton hybrid seeds after appellant terminated their non-exclusive marketing agreement executed in Delhi, which had permitted Veda limited use for specific hybrids produced by appellant.
Veda filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC challenging territorial jurisdiction; a Single Judge allowed it and returned the plaint, holding no cause of action arose in Delhi as the agreement was not integral to the infringement claim, mere trademark registration in Delhi insufficient, and no evidence of sales or targeting in Delhi via e-commerce listings by third parties.
On appeal, the Division Bench reasoned that the marketing agreement formed part of the cause of action since infringement stemmed from use beyond its permitted scope and it was executed in Delhi, registration alone does not confer jurisdiction but infringement location does, interactive e-commerce availability of products accessible in Delhi constitutes purposeful availment conferring jurisdiction unlike passive sites, and the Single Judge erred by relying on material outside the plaint to dismiss third-party listings' relevance. The appeal was allowed, impugned order set aside, and suit restored as maintainable in Delhi High Court.
Point of Law Settled:
Execution of a marketing agreement in a particular jurisdiction constitutes part of the cause of action for a trademark infringement suit where the infringement is alleged to arise from use of marks beyond the agreement's permitted scope, thereby vesting territorial jurisdiction in that court under Section 20(c) of the CPC. ( paras 18-18.8)
Mere registration of a trademark at the Trade Marks Registry located in Delhi does not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court for an infringement suit unless the actual infringement occurs within its territorial limits. (paras 17-17.13)
In trademark infringement cases involving e-commerce, if the defendant's website is interactive and enables customers within the jurisdiction to place orders, make inquiries, or engage in transactions, it amounts to purposeful availment of the jurisdiction, thereby vesting territorial jurisdiction in that court. (paras 19-19.15)
Availability of allegedly infringing products on third-party e-commerce platforms accessible within the jurisdiction can support a plea of territorial jurisdiction if the plaint avers potential sales or confusion there, though the defendant's actual responsibility for such listings is a matter for trial and cannot be dismissed at the threshold based on material outside the plaint. ( paras 21-21.4)
Where no part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the plaintiff's principal office but arises at a subordinate office, the plaintiff cannot invoke jurisdiction at the principal office under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but this principle does not apply if elements like agreement execution or e-commerce targeting create cause of action at the principal office. (paras 20-20.5)
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd Vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd : 3 December 2025 : FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2025:2025:DHC: 10789-DB:Del HCHigh Court of Delhi at New Delhi : Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]
