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 \u201cTADAAKHA\u201d and \u201cSADANAND\u201d used in relation to hybrid seeds. The plaintiff\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u2022 Whether the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act?
\n\u2022 Whether the existence of the plaintiff\u2019s principal office in Delhi was sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, despite no direct evidence of infringing sales in Delhi?
\n\u2022 Whether online availability of the infringing products on platforms accessible in Delhi gives rise to cause of action?<\/p>\n
\u2022 The appellant carried on business in Delhi through its registered office.
\n\u2022 Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act allows institution of suits where the plaintiff resides or carries on business.
\n\u2022 The infringing products were listed on IndiaMart, which is accessible in Delhi, constituting a continuing wrong.
\n\u2022 The marketing agreement with the defendant was executed in Delhi, supporting jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
\u2022 The alleged acts of infringement took place outside Delhi.
\n\u2022 No sale or business was conducted by the defendant in Delhi.
\n\u2022 Mere availability on an online platform does not establish jurisdiction.
\n\u2022 The presence of branch offices in states where the infringement occurred makes those courts appropriate.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court first held that Section 134(2) enables a plaintiff to institute a suit where it \u201cactually and voluntarily resides or carries on business.\u201d It stated that the appellant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The plaint was restored and directed to be adjudicated on merits.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n