Summary
In the case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court Division Bench held that the existence of the plaintiff’s principal office within the jurisdiction and the online availability of the infringing products were sufficient to establish territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and restored the suit for adjudication.
Trademark Infringement and Jurisdiction Dispute
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit in the Delhi High Court against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd. It claimed rights over the marks “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND” used in relation to hybrid seeds. The plaintiff’s principal office was in Delhi. It alleged that the defendant was marketing deceptively similar products, including through IndiaMart, an online marketplace accessible from Delhi. The plaintiff also referenced a marketing agreement signed in Delhi.
The defendant sought return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, arguing that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. The Single Judge accepted this plea, holding that mere online presence or marketing agreements signed in Delhi were insufficient. The plaintiff appealed.
Questions Before the Court
• Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act?
• Whether the existence of the plaintiff’s principal office in Delhi was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, despite no direct evidence of infringing sales in Delhi?
• Whether online availability of the infringing products on platforms accessible in Delhi gives rise to cause of action?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant (Plaintiff):
• The appellant carried on business in Delhi through its registered office.
• Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act allows institution of suits where the plaintiff resides or carries on business.
• The infringing products were listed on IndiaMart, which is accessible in Delhi, constituting a continuing wrong.
• The marketing agreement with the defendant was executed in Delhi, supporting jurisdiction.
Respondent (Defendant):
• The alleged acts of infringement took place outside Delhi.
• No sale or business was conducted by the defendant in Delhi.
• Mere availability on an online platform does not establish jurisdiction.
• The presence of branch offices in states where the infringement occurred makes those courts appropriate.
Court’s Analysis of Territorial Jurisdiction
The Division Bench applied a methodical framework to assess jurisdiction under both Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act and Section 20 of the CPC.
Business Presence in Delhi:
The court first held that Section 134(2) enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where it “actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business.” It stated that the appellant’s registered office in Delhi was a principal office, where business was admittedly carried on. This sufficed to satisfy the test under Section 134(2), irrespective of where the cause of action arose.
Online Availability of Infringing Goods:
The court stated that listing of products on online marketplaces such as IndiaMart, which are accessible in Delhi, could give rise to a part of the cause of action. It clarified that it is not necessary for a transaction to be completed in Delhi. The very act of offering goods for sale on a platform accessible in Delhi constitutes an actionable wrong. According to the court, this contributes to jurisdiction even under Section 20(c) CPC.
Marketing Agreement Executed in Delhi:
The court considered the marketing agreement between the parties, which was executed in Delhi. It held that the agreement formed part of the factual matrix of the dispute. Since the agreement was specifically pleaded in the plaint and formed part of the cause of action, it also contributed to jurisdiction.
Findings
The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge’s order. It held that the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, and also under Section 20(c) CPC due to online availability of infringing products and the marketing agreement.
The plaint was restored and directed to be adjudicated on merits.
Case Citation
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025, Delhi High Court, decided on 3 December 2025.
Indian Kanoon: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/60207662/ (Visited on 23 December 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog.