Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla has restored a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. against its former marketer, Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., setting aside a 2025 Single Judge order that had returned the plaint for want of territorial jurisdiction. The Bench, by a judgment dated December 03, 2025, held that Kohinoor’s trademark registrations in Delhi and a marketing agreement executed between the parties in Delhi constituted a sufficient territorial nexus for the Court to entertain the action. The dispute concerns allegations that Veda marketed cotton hybrid seeds under marks incorporating Kohinoor’s registered brands, leading Kohinoor to seek injunctive relief for infringement and passing off.

Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. instituted a commercial suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. in relation to cotton hybrid seeds. The plaint alleged that the respondent was selling hybrid seeds under the marks “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II”, “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II”, thereby infringing the appellant’s registered marks TADAAKHA and SADANAND and passing off its goods as those of the appellant.

Also Read: Nomination Of Parent For General Provident Fund Ceases On Employee’s Marriage; Supreme Court Allows Appeal, Restores CAT Order Granting Equal Share To Widow And Mother

 It was pleaded that the marks TADAAKHA, SADANAND and BASANT were used for cotton hybrid seeds, and that TADAAKHA and SADANAND were registered in Class 31 for agricultural seeds. The plaint also referred to a co-marketing arrangement renewed annually, with the “Marketing Agreement dated 01.01.2022 executed in New Delhi” and valid up to 31.12.2022, under which the respondent was permitted to market and distribute specified cotton hybrid seeds under the appellant’s marks, subject to acknowledgements and obligations recorded in the agreement.

The respondent thereafter moved an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint for presentation before the appropriate court on the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction, which came to be allowed by the Single Judge—leading to the present appellate proceedings.

The Court recorded that “the present case was instituted on 30 December 2022… The plaint disclosed that the plaintiff had entered into a non-exclusive co-marketing agreement… renewed annually, the last being on 01.01.2022, executed at New Delhi.” It further noted that “the appellant’s asserted trademarks stand registered within the jurisdiction of this Court, the Marketing Agreement was executed at Delhi and the allegedly infringing goods of the respondent are available for sale and purchase, across e-commerce websites, at Delhi.”

The Bench referred to the Single Judge’s treatment of online listings and stated that “the learned Single Judge has held that the documents filed by the appellant did not disclose any dynamic effect of the listing of the respondent’s products on IndiaMart and Kalgudi or interactivity in Delhi.” However, the Division Bench recorded: “To our mind, these findings cannot sustain. It was specifically asserted, in the plaint, that the IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites were accessible in Delhi.” It added that “as orders could be placed across these websites, the dynamic effect of the availability of the respondent’s goods on the said e-market platforms was felt within the jurisdiction of this Court.”

The Bench discussed World Wrestling Entertainment and stated that “World Wrestling Entertainment extends, in a case of e-commerce, the situs to include every place where a commercial transaction could be concluded and the goods bought or sold. Every Court having jurisdiction over such place can, therefore, adjudicate on the aspect of infringement or passing off.”

Regarding the application of Ultra Home Construction, the Court recorded: “We need not delve too deep into this aspect, as, in our view, a substantial part of the cause of action in the present case does arise within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court… As such, no occasion arises to invoke the Ultra Home Construction doctrine.”

The Bench further stated: “In our view, therefore, the appellant’s right to sue the respondent before this Court does not stand divested by the law declared in Ultra Home Construction. We are constrained to hold that the learned Single Judge was in error in deciding otherwise.”

Finally, the Court recorded its interpretation of Section 134: “To our mind, Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act confers an absolute right on a plaintiff to sue the defendant at the place where the plaintiff has its principal office of business… To hold otherwise would be re-writing Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which a Court cannot do.”

Also Read: Centre Entitled To Exclude Colour-Blind Recruits From CAPFs And Assam Rifles; Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions Upholding 2013 MHA Policy And CISF Termination Orders

The Court stated that “for all these reasons, we are of the opinion that the plaint, as instituted by the appellant, was maintainable before this Court. The learned Single Judge has, in our considered opinion, erred in holding otherwise. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, adjudicating IA 2200/2023 filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, is not, therefore, in our view, sustainable on facts or in law. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.”

 Resultantly, IA 2200/2023 filed by the respondent would also stand dismissed. The suit itself would stand restored to the file of the learned Single Judge for further proceedings in accordance with law. The appeal stands allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu Agarwal, Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Kapil Rustagi, Mr. Saurabh Seth, Ms. Chandreyee Maitra, Ms. Allaka M, Mr. Manas Arora, Mr. Raghav Thareja, Mr. Parth Singh and Mr. Ajay, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Sindoora, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Mr. Wamic Wasim, Ms. Thithiksha Padmam and Mr. Anish Jandial, Advocates.

Case Title: Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10789-DB

Case Number: FAO(OS)(COMM) 66/2025

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla