Company can't claim jurisdiction based on HQ if cause of action arose elsewhere: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently rejected a trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt Ltd against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt Ltd, on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Delhi. (Kohinoor Seed Fields Vs Veeda Seed Sciences) .Justice Amit Bansal held that Kohinoor Seed cannot maintain the suit in Delhi merely because its head office is located in the capital, when the cause of action— the alleged trademark infringement—occurred elsewhere, and the company has offices in those jurisdictions too."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," the Court ruled..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. Appearing for Veeda Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, 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 agreed after noting that there was no pleading or evidence of the defendant targeting Delhi consumers or conducting business in Delhi.“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.“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,” the Court held.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..Kohinoor 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..Senior Advocate Raj Shekhar Rao, who appeared for Veda, was briefed by advocates Kapil Wadhwa, Sindoora VNL, Vishakha Gupta, Twinkle Rathi, Thithiksha Padman and Anish Jandial..[Read Judgment]