COMPANY CAN'T CLAIM JURISDICTION BASED ON HQ IF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ELSEWHERE: DELHI HIGH COURT

COMPANY CAN'T CLAIM JURISDICTION BASED ON HQ IF CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE ELSEWHERE: DELHI HIGH COURT                                

Judgment pronounced on:16.04.2025

IN Case of Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd vs. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, Delhi High Court recently rejected a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi

“Justice Amit Bansal held that The plaintiff cannot claim jurisdiction only on the basis of the location of its head office in Delhi, when it has subordinate office(s) at place(s) where the cause of action has arisen,"

Kohinoor Seed, an Indian seed company with its registered office in Delhi, approached the High 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 deceptively similar names including VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD, VEDA SADANAND GOLD, and VEDA BASANT GOLD

The two companies had a co-marketing arrangement since 2014, most recently formalised through a marketing agreement dated January 1, 2022.

Kohinoor terminated this agreement in late 2022 after alleging that Veda Seed was misusing its trademarks to promote unauthorised products ahead of the 2023 Kharif season.

Veda Seed, a Guntur-based agro-input company, challenged the maintainability of the suit on territorial grounds., contended that Kohinoor had deliberately suppressed material facts, including that it has branch offices in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, which were actively used for licensing, invoicing and distribution of seeds.

It was further argued that:

• No sales by Veda Seed were made in Delhi;

• It held no license to market seeds in Delhi;

• The alleged infringing listings on e-commerce platforms like IndiaMart were made by third-party dealers and not by Veda Seed itself.

The court said, “Even if the defendant’s products are shown available on India Mart and Kalgudi, the defendant cannot be held responsible for the same,” the Court observed, referencing screenshots submitted by Kohinoor, which identified third-party sellers located in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.

The Court dismissed Kohinoor’s claim that the Delhi head office alone was sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Instead, it invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia and the Delhi High Court’s landmark Ultra Home Construction decision.

Both rulings make it clear that while plaintiffs may sue in the jurisdiction where they carry on business, they cannot bypass the appropriate forum when they also maintain offices at the place where the cause of action has arisen, the Court said.

It also clarified that Kohinoor’s brief reference to the marketing agreement executed in Delhi was not sufficient to establish jurisdiction, particularly since the suit was framed solely as one for trademark infringement and not for breach of contract.

the Court held “From a holistic reading of the plaint... it is abundantly clear that the present suit is not premised on any cause of action based on the marketing agreement or the breach,” .

Since Kohinoor failed to show that any part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Delhi High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the judge concluded.

The company was asked to move the court having appropriate jurisdiction.