In the realm of intellectual property law, territorial jurisdiction often emerges as a pivotal battleground, shaping the trajectory of trademark disputes. The case of M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, exemplifies this struggle, where the plaintiff's attempt to anchor a trademark infringement suit in Delhi was challenged on jurisdictional grounds. This case delves into the intricate interplay between the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), particularly under Section 134(2) and Section 20, respectively.

Centered on the alleged infringement of trademarks associated with cotton hybrid seeds, the dispute underscores the judiciary's stringent approach to jurisdictional claims, emphasizing the need for a clear cause of action within the forum state. The Delhi High Court's ruling, delivered on April 16, 2025, reinforces the principles laid down in landmark precedents, offering critical guidance for corporations navigating multi-jurisdictional trademark litigation in India.

Detailed Factual Background:
Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd, an Indian seed company with its registered office in New Delhi, has been a prominent player in the production and sale of Bollgard II (BG II) cotton hybrids across states like Madhya Pradesh, South Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Karnataka. Since 2014, Kohinoor developed and marketed cotton hybrids KSCH-207 BG II and KSCH-212 BG II under the brand names TADAAKHA and BASANT, respectively, and introduced KSCH-232 BG II under the brand name SADANAND in 2015. These trademarks, notably TADAAKHA and SADANAND, were registered with the Trade Marks Registry in Delhi, bolstering Kohinoor's proprietary claims.

The defendant, Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, an Indian company based in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, is engaged in producing and marketing agro inputs. Since 2014, Kohinoor and Veda maintained a non-exclusive co-marketing arrangement, renewed annually, for the distribution of five cotton hybrids. The latest Marketing Agreement, executed on January 1, 2022, in New Delhi, governed their relationship until December 31, 2022. This agreement permitted Veda to market Kohinoor's hybrids in specified states, excluding Delhi, as Veda lacked a seed dealer license under the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983, for Delhi.

Tensions arose when Kohinoor, on September 27, 2022, notified Veda of its intent not to renew the Marketing Agreement. On October 1, 2022, Kohinoor informed its distributors that, starting with the Kharif 2023 season, it would sell directly, bypassing Veda. In October 2022, Kohinoor discovered that Veda was promoting and accepting advance bookings for BG II cotton hybrid seeds under the brand names VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II, VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II, and VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II, which Kohinoor alleged infringed its trademarks. Evidence of these bookings was received via WhatsApp from traders and distributors. Kohinoor issued a termination notice on November 25, 2022, granting Veda 15 days to rectify its actions. The Marketing Agreement was subsequently terminated on December 10, 2022.

Kohinoor filed a suit on November 29, 2022, before the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction against Veda for trademark infringement and passing off, alongside ancillary reliefs. Meanwhile, Veda filed a counter-suit (COS No. 6 of 2024) on February 23, 2024, in the Rangareddy District Court, Telangana, asserting rights over the impugned marks. Kohinoor responded with a transfer petition (T.P.(C) No. 1161/2024) before the Supreme Court, which, on November 22, 2024, stayed the Telangana proceedings pending the Delhi High Court's decision on the jurisdictional challenge.

Detailed Procedural Background:
The procedural journey commenced with Kohinoor filing the suit (CS(COMM) 828/2022) on November 29, 2022, before the Delhi High Court, accompanied by multiple interim applications. On December 1, 2022, the court granted an ad interim injunction, restraining Veda from manufacturing, selling, or advertising BT cotton hybrid seeds under Kohinoor's trademarks TADAAKHA, BASANT, and SADANAND. Veda's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Division Bench on December 15, 2022.

Veda filed an application (I.A. 2200/2023) under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking the return of the plaint for lack of territorial jurisdiction and alleging material suppression of facts by Kohinoor. Notice was issued on February 6, 2023, and Kohinoor filed a reply. Arguments were heard on January 9, January 30, February 10, and February 24, 2025, with judgment reserved on the latter date. Written submissions were filed by Veda on March 4, 2025, and by Kohinoor on March 5, 2025. Additionally, Kohinoor filed an application (I.A. 2500/2025) under Order VII Rule 14, which was allowed, permitting the filing of additional documents.

The Supreme Court's stay on the Telangana suit, issued on November 22, 2024, linked its adjudication to the outcome of Veda's jurisdictional application in Delhi. The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, delivered its judgment on April 16, 2025, addressing the jurisdictional challenge.

Issues Involved in the Case:
The case presented several critical issues for adjudication. First, whether the cause of action for Kohinoor's suit was partly based on the Marketing Agreement executed in Delhi? Second, whether a sufficient cause of action, including the listing of Veda's products on e-commerce platforms like India Mart, existed within Delhi to justify the court's jurisdiction? Third, whether Kohinoor could invoke jurisdiction based solely on its head office in Delhi, given its subordinate office in Telangana, where the cause of action allegedly arose. Fourth, whether Kohinoor's failure to disclose its subordinate offices constituted material suppression affecting jurisdictional claims. Finally, whether judicial precedents supported or restricted the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction in this trademark infringement suit.

Detailed Submission of Parties:
Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to satisfy the twin conditions of cause of action and place of business under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Section 20 of the CPC. They contended that Kohinoor deliberately concealed its subordinate offices in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, where it held seed dealer licenses and raised invoices, indicating active business operations. Veda emphasized that the Marketing Agreement restricted its activities to specified states, excluding Delhi, and that Veda lacked a license to sell seeds in Delhi, rendering any sales there impossible.The alleged infringing activities, including advance bookings, occurred in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka, with no dynamic effect felt in Delhi. Veda argued that the India Mart listings were by third parties, not Veda, and did not facilitate orders in Delhi, citing Banyan Tree Holding v. A Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780. They further noted that the suit, filed during the Marketing Agreement's subsistence, was for trademark infringement, not breach of contract, and that mere trademark registration in Delhi did not confer jurisdiction.

Plaintiff countered that only the plaint's averments should be considered under Order VII Rule 10, assumed true on a demurrer. They asserted that Kohinoor's registered office in Delhi, where it ordinarily conducts business, and the registration of TADAAKHA and SADANAND with the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, vested jurisdiction under Section 134(2). Kohinoor argued that the Marketing Agreement, executed in Delhi, formed part of the cause of action, as Veda's infringing use breached its terms.

They highlighted that Veda's seed packets appeared on e-commerce platforms like India Mart, accessible in Delhi, which, per Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13412, and Shakti Fashion v. Burberry Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1636, sufficed for jurisdiction. Kohinoor maintained that Section 134(2) and Section 20 of the CPC operate alternatively, and part of the cause of action-evidenced by advance bookings and WhatsApp communications-arose in Delhi, justifying the suit's maintainability.
 

Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties

The court examined several precedents cited by both parties, each shaping the jurisdictional analysis:

• Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161: Veda relied on this Supreme Court ruling, which interpreted Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957, analogous to Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that a plaintiff with a principal office where the cause of action arises must sue there, not at a subordinate office's location, to prevent inconvenience to defendants. In Sanjay Dalia, the plaintiff's suit in Delhi was dismissed as the cause of action arose in Maharashtra, where its principal office was located. This precedent was pivotal, supporting Veda's argument that Kohinoor, with a subordinate office in Telangana where the cause of action arose, could not sue in Delhi.
   
• Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, (2016) 227 DLT 320 (DB): Cited by Veda, this Delhi High Court Division Bench decision clarified four jurisdictional scenarios under Section 134(2). Relevant here was the third scenario: when a plaintiff has a principal office (Delhi) and a subordinate office (Telangana), and the cause of action arises at the subordinate office's location, the plaintiff must sue there, not at the principal office. The court applied Sanjay Dalia, dismissing a suit filed in Delhi where the cause of action arose in Jharkhand, where the plaintiff had a subordinate office. This directly supported Veda's contention that Kohinoor's suit belonged in Telangana.
   
• Banyan Tree Holding v. A Murali Krishna Reddy, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780: Veda invoked this Division Bench ruling, which addressed jurisdiction in internet-based disputes. The court held that mere website accessibility in the forum state (Delhi) does not confer jurisdiction unless the defendant specifically targets the forum state for commercial transactions, causing harm to the plaintiff there. A passive or non-targeted interactive website does not suffice. Veda argued that the India Mart and Kalgudi listings, made by third parties and not targeting Delhi, did not establish jurisdiction, aligning with this precedent.
   
• Radico Khaitan v. Nakshatra Distilleries & Breweries, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7682: Veda cited this case, later reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1224, where the Delhi High Court rejected jurisdiction in Delhi for a plaintiff with a corporate office in Delhi but a subordinate office in Mumbai, where the cause of action (defendant's sales) arose. The court dismissed claims of "dynamic effect" in Delhi as insufficient, reinforcing Ultra Home and Sanjay Dalia. This supported Veda's argument that Kohinoor's jurisdictional claim based on Delhi's head office was untenable.
   
• Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41: The court, not explicitly cited by parties but referenced in the judgment, relied on this Supreme Court ruling to dismiss Kohinoor's claim that trademark registration in Delhi conferred jurisdiction. The court clarified that jurisdiction arises from trademark use, not registration, undermining Kohinoor's reliance on Delhi's Trade Marks Registry.
   
• Provident Housing v. Central Park Estates, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2167: Kohinoor cited this Division Bench decision, arguing that a plaintiff's registered office in Delhi suffices for jurisdiction. The court upheld jurisdiction based on the plaintiff's Delhi office, but the cause of action's location was not discussed, distinguishing it from the present case where the cause of action was contested. The court found this precedent inapplicable, as Ultra Home's scenarios were not addressed.
   
• CP Century Hardware v. Skywood Interior Solutions, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 326: Kohinoor relied on this case, where jurisdiction was upheld in Delhi due to explicit pleadings of the defendant's clandestine sales in Delhi. The court distinguished it, noting Kohinoor's plaint lacked similar averments of sales in Delhi, rendering the precedent irrelevant.
   
• Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13412: Kohinoor cited this Single Judge decision, where jurisdiction was upheld due to the defendant's products being sold in Delhi's Big Bazaar and listed on India Mart. The court distinguished it, as Marico involved direct sales evidence and an interactive India Mart listing, unlike the third-party listings in Kohinoor's case.
   
• Shakti Fashion v. Burberry Limited, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1636: Kohinoor relied on this case, where an India Mart listing with the defendant's address suggested their involvement, warranting trial. The court distinguished it, noting Veda's listings were by third parties with no such connection, making jurisdiction untenable.
   
• T. Arvindandam v. T.V. Satyapal, (1977) 4 SCC 467: The court referenced this Supreme Court ruling to caution against clever drafting to create jurisdiction. It emphasized that courts must scrutinize plaints to prevent vexatious suits, supporting the rejection of Kohinoor's jurisdictional claims.
   
• Indovax v. Merck Animal Health, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9393: The court cited this Single Judge decision, which, relying on Banyan Tree, rejected jurisdiction in Delhi for lack of evidence of defendant's sales, aligning with Veda's argument against India Mart-based jurisdiction.
   
• HSIL v. Marvel Ceramic, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11571: The court noted this Division Bench decision, following Ultra Home, to reinforce that jurisdiction lies where the cause of action and plaintiff's office coincide, supporting the return of Kohinoor's plaint.

These precedents collectively underscored the need for a tangible cause of action in the forum state and restricted jurisdiction when a plaintiff's subordinate office aligns with the cause of action's location.

Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:
On the first issue-whether the cause of action stemmed from the Marketing Agreement-the court scrutinized paragraphs 49 and 50 of the plaint. Paragraph 49 defined the cause of action as Veda's use of Kohinoor's trademarks in October 2022, with no mention of the Marketing Agreement. Paragraph 50, while referencing the agreement's execution in Delhi, framed the suit as a trademark infringement and passing off action, not a contract breach.

Paragraphs 47 and 48 reserved Kohinoor's rights for other causes of action, including contract breaches, and the application under Order II Rule 2 (I.A. 20138/2022) sought leave for future breach claims, confirming the suit's limited scope. The court concluded that the Marketing Agreement did not contribute to the cause of action, negating Delhi's jurisdiction on this basis.

On the second issue-whether a cause of action, including India Mart listings, arose in Delhi-the court found no averments or evidence of Veda's sales in Delhi. The plaint relied solely on third-party listings on India Mart and Kalgudi, by Shiva Agro Agency (Karnataka) and Bhavani Seeds Center (Andhra Pradesh), respectively, with no option for Delhi deliveries. Applying Banyan Tree, the court held that mere website accessibility or third-party listings without specific targeting of Delhi for commercial transactions did not confer jurisdiction.

Kohinoor's claim that India Mart was a dynamic website lacked supporting evidence of orders or communications in Delhi. The court distinguished Marico and Shakti Fashion, noting their reliance on direct sales or defendant-linked listings, unlike Veda's case. The absence of pleadings on Delhi-specific harm or dynamic effects, as required by Radico Khaitan, further undermined Kohinoor's claim.

On the third issue-whether Kohinoor's Delhi head office sufficed for jurisdiction despite a Telangana subordinate office-the court applied Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home. Ultra Home's third scenario was decisive: when a plaintiff has a principal office (Delhi) and a subordinate office (Telangana) where the cause of action arises, jurisdiction lies at the subordinate office. Kohinoor's invoices confirmed its Telangana office, and the cause of action-Veda's bookings in Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka-aligned with this location.

The court rejected Kohinoor's reliance on Provident Housing and CP Century Hardware, as they involved different factual contexts. Kohinoor's failure to disclose its Telangana office, though not fatal, supported Veda's suppression argument. The court invoked T. Arvindandam to reject Kohinoor's clever drafting, which attempted to invoke jurisdiction via the Marketing Agreement and vague e-commerce references.

The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, and Kohinoor's head office could not override the subordinate office's jurisdictional primacy where the cause of action occurred.

Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court allowed Veda's application (I.A. 2200/2023) on April 16, 2025, ordering the return of the plaint and pending applications under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC to be presented in a court with jurisdiction, likely in Telangana. The court found no cause of action within Delhi's territorial jurisdiction and held that Kohinoor's Delhi head office did not confer jurisdiction given its subordinate office in Telangana, where the cause of action arose.

Law Settled in This Case:
This case reinforces several principles in Indian trademark law and civil procedure. First, under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, courts assess jurisdiction based solely on the plaint's averments and accompanying documents, assuming their truth. Second, Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, allows suits at the plaintiff's principal office only if no cause of action arises at a subordinate office's location; otherwise, jurisdiction lies where the cause of action and subordinate office coincide, per Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home.

Third, mere accessibility of infringing products on e-commerce platforms like India Mart does not confer jurisdiction unless the defendant specifically targets the forum state for commercial transactions, causing harm there, as per Banyan Tree. Fourth, trademark registration in a forum state does not establish jurisdiction; actual use does, per Dhodha House. Finally, courts guard against clever drafting to create illusory jurisdiction, emphasizing a meaningful reading of the plaint to prevent vexatious litigation.

Cause Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd Vs Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd
Case Number: CS (COMM) 828/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2593
Date of Order: 16 April 2025 
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Presiding Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

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
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539