The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, ruling that no part of the cause of action had arisen within its territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Amit Bansal held that the mere presence of Kohinoor’s head office in Delhi was insufficient to confer jurisdiction when the alleged trademark infringement occurred elsewhere, particularly in regions where the company also operates branch offices.
“A plaintiff cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court solely on the basis of its head office being located in Delhi, particularly when it also maintains subordinate offices at the places where the cause of action has arisen,” the Court stated.
Kohinoor Seed, a Delhi-based seed company, had approached the Court in November 2022 seeking a permanent injunction against Veda Seed for allegedly infringing its registered trademarks—TADAAKHA, SADANAND, and BASANT—by marketing BT cotton hybrids under similar names such as VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD, VEDA SADANAND GOLD, and VEDA BASANT GOLD.
The two companies had previously entered into a co-marketing arrangement in 2014, formalized most recently by a marketing agreement dated January 1, 2022. However, Kohinoor terminated the agreement in late 2022, accusing Veda of unauthorized trademark use ahead of the 2023 Kharif season.
Veda Seed, headquartered in Guntur, challenged the maintainability of the suit on territorial grounds. Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, appearing for Veda, contended that Kohinoor had suppressed material facts, including the existence of active branch offices in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh—regions from where the alleged infringing activity originated.
He further argued that:
- Veda Seed conducted no sales in Delhi;
- It held no license to sell seeds in the capital;
- Listings on platforms such as IndiaMart were made by independent dealers, not Veda itself.
The Court concurred, noting that there was no evidence to show that Veda had targeted customers in Delhi or carried out business within the territory. Screenshots submitted by Kohinoor only showed listings by third-party sellers based in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
The Court firmly rejected the argument that Delhi jurisdiction could be invoked solely under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, based on the company’s registered office location. Citing precedents including Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia and Ultra Home Construction, the Court reiterated that plaintiffs cannot bypass the appropriate forum when they also have a business presence where the dispute has actually arisen.
Kohinoor’s reliance on the execution of the marketing agreement in Delhi was also found to be misplaced. The Court noted that the suit was purely framed as a trademark infringement case, with no claim arising from contractual breach.
“A holistic reading of the plaint reveals that the present suit is not based on any cause of action stemming from the marketing agreement or its breach,” Justice Bansal concluded.
Consequently, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter and directed Kohinoor to approach the competent court in the appropriate territorial jurisdiction.
Legal Representation
Kohinoor Seed was represented by Advocates Saurav Agrawal, Adarsh Ramanujan, Shantanu Agrawal, Kapil Rustagi, Chandreyee Maitra, Asmita Srivastav, Allaka M, Manas Arora, Ajay Sharma, Raghav Thareja, Shivam Chaudhary, Surabhi Mahajan, and Parth Singh.
Veda Seed was represented by Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, briefed by Advocates Kapil Wadhwa, Sindoora VNL, Vishakha Gupta, Twinkle Rathi, Thithiksha Padman, and Anish Jandial.
