The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench restored the trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier order by a Single Judge that had returned the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The Court held that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction, thereby allowing the suit to proceed on its merits.
Key Grounds for Restoring Jurisdiction
The Division Bench identified two primary factors that conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court:
- Registration of Trademarks in Delhi:
- Kohinoor Seed’s registered trademarks, “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, were registered in Delhi.
- The Court held that the mere fact that the asserted marks were registered within the jurisdiction of the High Court was a factor that, by itself, entitled the appellant to institute the suit in Delhi.
- Execution of Marketing Agreement in Delhi:
- The non-exclusive co-marketing agreement, which was at the heart of the dispute, was executed in New Delhi. This agreement allowed Veda Seed to market Kohinoor’s seeds under the marks (including the unregistered mark “BASANT”) until it expired in 2022.
- The Court ruled that since the agreement formed an integral part of the cause of action—as the alleged infringement occurred after the agreement’s termination and involved marks initially licensed—the Court within whose jurisdiction the agreement was executed has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
Details of the Dispute
- Kohinoor’s Marks: Registered trademarks “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, and unregistered mark “BASANT”, all used for cotton hybrid seeds.
- Veda Seed’s Allegedly Infringing Marks: “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II,” “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II,” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II.”
- Background: The parties had a co-marketing agreement from 2014 to 2022. Post-termination, Kohinoor alleged that Veda Seed began selling its own seeds using deceptively similar marks.
- Single Judge’s View (Set Aside): The Single Judge had accepted Veda Seed’s argument that its operations were limited to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and that online listings (on IndiaMart/Kalgudi) were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
- Division Bench’s View on Online Listings: The Division Bench observed that the question of Veda Seed’s direct or indirect involvement in the online listings of the allegedly infringing goods was a matter that required a full trial and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and restored the trademark infringement suit to be heard on its merits.
