Territorial jurisdiction is a foundational principle in civil litigation. It ensures that a lawsuit is filed in a court that has a real and proximate connection to the dispute. In Intellectual Property (IP) matters, this often gets complicated when the plaintiff, typically a company with a widespread business presence, chooses to file a suit in a forum far removed from the actual events giving rise to the cause of action.
The recent judgment of the Delhi High Court in M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., CS(COMM) 828/2022, delivered on 16 April 2025, revisits and reaffirms the limitations on such forum shopping and reasserts that suits must be instituted where the cause of action arises.
Background of the Case
Parties Involved
The plaintiff, M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd., headquartered in New Delhi, is a seed production company involved in the sale of Bollgard II cotton hybrids under the trademarks ‘TADAAKHA’, ‘BASANT’, and ‘SADANAND’. The defendant, M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., is based in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, and was engaged in a co-marketing agreement with the plaintiff for the distribution of these products.
Nature of Dispute
After the termination of the marketing agreement, Kohinoor alleged that Veda Seed Sciences was using deceptively similar trademarks—‘VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD’, ‘VEDA BASANT GOLD’, and ‘VEDA SADANAND GOLD’—and filed a trademark infringement and passing off suit before the Delhi High Court.
Defendant’s Objection
The defendant applied for Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint, arguing that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction as:
- The alleged infringement occurred outside Delhi.
- The plaintiff operated subordinate offices in states where the cause of action allegedly arose.
- No part of the cause of action occurred within Delhi.
Issues
The court was called upon to determine three primary questions:
- Whether the cause of action arose in Delhi?
- Whether mere listing of infringing products on India Mart or similar e-commerce platforms was sufficient to confer jurisdiction on Delhi courts?
- Whether the existence of the plaintiff’s principal office in Delhi was sufficient to invoke Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, even when the cause of action arose elsewhere?
The Court’s Analysis
1. Cause of Action Must Arise in the Forum
Justice Amit Bansal held that a plaint must disclose a real and substantial cause of action within the forum’s territorial limits. It is not sufficient to assert jurisdiction based on the location of the registered office if the actual acts giving rise to the dispute occurred elsewhere. The Court reiterated that clever drafting and superficial references to jurisdiction cannot create or substitute a genuine cause of action.
In the instant case, Kohinoor did not show any infringing sales or harm suffered in Delhi. The documents and pleadings primarily demonstrated that the alleged infringing activities by the defendant occurred in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.
2. Mere Online Listings Do Not Confer Jurisdiction
The plaintiff contended that the availability of the infringing goods on India Mart and other online platforms accessible in Delhi gave the Delhi High Court jurisdiction. However, the Court, relying on the landmark decision in Banyan Tree Holding v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy, (2009) SCC OnLine Del 3780, held that mere accessibility of a website is not enough.
To invoke jurisdiction under Section 20 of the CPC or Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act:
- There must be a purposeful targeting of customers in the forum state.
- A commercial transaction must be completed or intended in the forum.
- Evidence of injury in the forum state must be presented.
In the present case, the listings were uploaded by third-party sellers, not the defendant. There was no evidence of targeting customers in Delhi or of any actual transaction involving the infringing products within the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.
3. Registered Office Alone is Not Sufficient When Plaintiff Has a Subordinate Office at the Place of Cause of Action
This formed the crux of the judgment. The Court examined the scope of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows a registered proprietor to institute a suit in the place where it “carries on business” irrespective of the location of the cause of action.
However, Justice Bansal relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Indian Performing Rights Society v. Sanjay Dalia (2015) 10 SCC 161, and the Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey (2016) 227 DLT 320 (DB).
These decisions established that:
- A company cannot choose a far-off jurisdiction merely because its registered office is located there.
- If the plaintiff has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, the suit must be filed in that location.
- The object of Section 134(2) is to ease the burden on the plaintiff, not to harass the defendant by filing in inconvenient forums.
Since Kohinoor’s subordinate office was located in Telangana, where the defendant is based and where the alleged infringing activity occurred, it could not invoke the jurisdiction of Delhi merely based on its head office.
Observations and Key Takeaways
Forum Shopping Discouraged
This judgment once again strikes a blow to the trend of forum shopping, wherein parties file suits in courts perceived to be more plaintiff-friendly, regardless of the actual connection of the dispute with the forum.
Narrow Reading of Section 134(2)
While Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 allows the plaintiff some leeway to file suits at its place of business, the judgment narrows its scope. The Court emphasised that this provision must be read harmoniously with Section 20 of the CPC and not be used to circumvent it.
Online Presence and Jurisdiction
The judgment sends a clear signal that mere online availability of goods is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must show specific targeting and commercial activity directed at the forum state.
Companies With Multiple Offices Must Choose the Correct Forum
If a company has a subordinate office in the place where the cause of action arises, it must file the suit there. Filing elsewhere—especially where no part of the cause of action occurred—will lead to rejection or return of the plaint.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2025) is a significant precedent in curbing the misuse of jurisdictional provisions in IP disputes. By holding that a company cannot file a suit at the place of its principal office if the cause of action arose elsewhere, and especially when it has an operational office in that place, the Court has reinforced principles of fairness, judicial economy, and access to justice.
Companies, especially those with pan-India operations, must take note: jurisdiction cannot be chosen at will. It must align with the real events giving rise to the dispute. Otherwise, as this case illustrates, the plaint will be returned, and the suit will have to begin again—this time in the proper court.