Below is the full research-style analytical legal paper based entirely on the uploaded judgment. All legal points are simplified for a wide audience, including law students, general readers, litigants and junior practitioners. No bullet points or para numbering have been used, as requested.
Legal Analysis Research Paper
Brief Introductory Head Note
The case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. decided by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court deals with a very important question under trademark and procedural law: Where can a trademark lawsuit be filed when the defendant disputes territorial jurisdiction?
The order focuses on whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields. A Single Judge had earlier ordered that the plaint be returned because he believed the Court did not have jurisdiction. The Division Bench reversed that decision and restored the suit.
This judgment clarifies how Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 interacts with Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), especially in cases where the plaintiff has its head office in one place and subordinate offices elsewhere. It also discusses whether e-commerce activity and contractual disputes can contribute to territorial jurisdiction.
Summary of Case and Factual Background
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd is the plaintiff engaged in manufacturing and selling agricultural hybrid seeds, including cotton seeds under the trademarks "TADAAKHA", "SADANAND", and the unregistered mark "BASANT". These marks are used in multiple Indian states.
The defendant Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. allegedly began selling cotton hybrid seeds under similar names such as “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II”, “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II”. The plaintiff alleged this amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
The plaintiff claimed that listings of the defendants’ products appeared on e-commerce platforms such as IndiaMart, which could be accessed in Delhi. The plaintiff also pointed out that its registered trademarks were recorded with a Delhi address.
Alongside infringement relief, the plaint referenced a Marketing Agreement allegedly breached by the defendant.
The plaintiff therefore approached the Delhi High Court under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act claiming jurisdiction on the ground that its principal place of business was in Delhi.
Procedural Detail
After the suit was filed, the defendant submitted an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint, claiming Delhi had no jurisdiction.
The plaintiff also filed an application under Order II Rule 2 CPC, reserving the right to bring additional claims including breach of contract and additional trademarks. That application was partly allowed earlier.
The Single Judge accepted the objections on territorial jurisdiction, ruled that Delhi was not the correct forum, and returned the plaint for filing before a court in Telangana, where the alleged infringement and marketing activities took place.
The plaintiff appealed this order through FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2025.
Core Dispute
The core legal dispute revolved around the question:
Does the Delhi High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a trademark infringement suit merely because the plaintiff has its principal place of business in Delhi, even if no part of cause of action occurred in Delhi?
This involved interpreting:
- Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Section 20 of CPC
- Supreme Court ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia
- Delhi High Court ruling in Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Chaubey
- E-commerce jurisdiction principles including Banyan Tree Holdings and World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) rulings.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by the Court
The Division Bench began by reviewing the Single Judge’s grounds, which rested mainly on the principles in Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction. The Single Judge felt that when the plaintiff had subordinate offices in Telangana, and the infringement happened there, Delhi could not be the forum of convenience merely because the plaintiff’s head office was in Delhi.
However, the Division Bench observed that Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act is a special provision giving the plaintiff an additional forum beyond Section 20 CPC. It enables a trademark owner to file a suit where it carries on business, even if the defendant is not located there.
The Bench found that the Single Judge misapplied Sanjay Dalia. The Supreme Court held that Section 134 cannot be used to indulge in “forum shopping” when the cause of action clearly arises elsewhere and the plaintiff has a working subordinate office there. But that principle only applies when it is clear from the plaint that the cause of action is exclusively elsewhere.
The Division Bench held that, in this case, the plaint contained pleaded facts linking the defendant’s acts and internet visibility to Delhi. It noted that under Banyan Tree Holding and WWE, internet presence accessible within a jurisdiction can constitute part of cause of action if commercial targeting is alleged.
The Court further noted that the marketing agreement may be relevant to the cause of action and must be tested during trial—not at the threshold stage—since Order VII Rule 10 CPC requires looking only at the plaint and its annexures.
The Court found that the Single Judge also erred by examining additional material beyond the plaint, such as invoices, to conclude lack of jurisdiction. Under the law, only the plaint’s averments must be examined when deciding jurisdiction objections under Order VII Rule 10.
The Bench held that the plaintiff’s registration certificates reflected Delhi as the business address and this supports jurisdiction.
Thus, the Court held that the suit was maintainable in Delhi.
Decision
The Division Bench allowed the appeal. It set aside the Single Judge’s order returning the plaint and held that the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to continue hearing the suit.
The related application under Order VII Rule 10 (IA 2200/2023) was dismissed.
The suit was ordered to be restored to the original court for further proceedings. No costs were imposed.
Concluding Note
This decision reinforces the principle that trademark owners have a statutory right to sue where they carry on business under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, provided the plaint discloses some factual basis connecting the dispute to that forum. Courts must avoid rejecting suits prematurely unless lack of jurisdiction is obvious from the face of the plaint.
It also highlights how digital commerce, online availability and contractual relationships can form part of the jurisdictional matrix in intellectual property disputes.
This ruling contributes significantly to evolving jurisprudence where online trade and multi-state operations raise complex territorial questions.
Case Metadata
Case Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: 03 December 2025
Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:____ (as per judgment pagination header)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
Suggested Publication Titles
- Jurisdiction in Trademark Litigation after Sanjay Dalia: A Study of Kohinoor Seeds v. Veda Seeds
- Territorial Jurisdiction and E-Commerce in India: Legal Lessons from Kohinoor Seeds Case
- Head Office as a Jurisdictional Anchor in IP Suits: Delhi High Court’s Interpretation in 2025
- Section 134(2) vs Section 20 CPC: Rebalancing Plaintiff Rights in IP Enforcement
- Forum Selection, Online Sales and Trademark Rights: Emerging Judicial Trends in India
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Delhi High Court Restores Trademark Suit Returned for Lack of Jurisdiction — Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. | Order dated 03 December 2025 | FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2025 | Before Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar & Hon’ble Justice Om Prakash Shukla | High Court of Delhi
In a significant ruling concerning territorial jurisdiction in trademark disputes, the Delhi High Court has set aside the earlier decision of a Single Judge who had returned the plaint filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. on the ground that Delhi lacked jurisdiction. The Division Bench restored the suit, holding that the Court could hear the matter under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Kohinoor Seed Fields had initiated proceedings alleging infringement of its registered trademarks "TADAAKHA" and "SADANAND" and passing off of its unregistered mark "BASANT" by Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, arguing that the alleged infringement occurred in Telangana and that Delhi was not the appropriate forum.
The Single Judge accepted the objection and returned the plaint, stating that mere presence of the plaintiff’s head office in Delhi could not create territorial jurisdiction when the cause of action arose elsewhere. However, the Division Bench disagreed, holding that the plaint contained adequate assertions linking part of the cause of action to Delhi, including the plaintiff’s registered trademarks being associated with a Delhi address and the online availability of allegedly infringing products.
The Court emphasized that jurisdiction objections at the threshold stage must be determined solely on the plaint and its supporting documents and not on additional evidence or assumptions. The decision reinforces the broader jurisdictional rights granted to trademark plaintiffs under Section 134(2), particularly in cases involving online commerce and multi-location business operations.
With the order, the suit has been restored for trial before the Single Judge. No costs were imposed.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi.
