Delhi High Court Restores Kohinoor Seed's Trademark Suit Against Veda Seed; Says It Has Territorial Jurisdiction

A Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla delivered the judgment on December 03, 2025, ruling that Kohinoor's trademark registrations in Delhi and a marketing agreement executed between the parties in Delhi were sufficient to vest territorial jurisdiction in the Court.

The dispute concerns Kohinoor's registered marks TADAAKHA and SADANAND and its unregistered mark BASANT, all used for cotton hybrid seeds. Kohinoor alleged that Veda Seed was selling competing seed products using similar marks such as “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II,” “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II.”

Kohinoor also relied on a Marketing Agreement between the parties under which Veda had earlier marketed certain Kohinoor hybrid seeds. It was stated that the said agreement, executed in New Delhi, expressly recognised Kohinoor's ownership of the marks.

Veda sought return of Kohinoor's plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, arguing that it operated only in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, that no sales took place in Delhi and that the online listings of its products on IndiaMart or Kalgudi could not form part of the cause of action. The Single Judge accepted these submissions and returned the plaint.

Disagreeing with the Single Judge's finding, the Division Bench observed that Kohinoor's registrations in Delhi gave it a statutory right to sue in Delhi. The Court held that the Single Judge had misconstrued the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhodha House v. S K Maingi, clarifying that while the filing of an application for registration does not confer territorial jurisdiction, Kohinoor was asserting jurisdiction based on granted registrations, not pending applications.

“We are, therefore, of the opinion that the fact that the marks asserted by the appellant in the present case were registered within the jurisdiction of this Court was by itself a factor which entitled the appellants to institute the suit before this Court,” the Court said.

The Bench also held that the Marketing Agreement, having been signed in Delhi and forming part of the cause of action in Kohinoor's plaint, further supported the Court's jurisdiction. It observed, “this Court, being the Court within whose jurisdiction the Marketing Agreement was admittedly executed, would be possessed of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjudicate on the lis.”

Taking note of Kohinoor's pleadings on the online availability of Veda's products and the law on internet-based jurisdiction laid down in World Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection, the Court said, “Whether the respondent, directly or indirectly, was involved in the said listings, is, at best, a matter of trial. The learned Single Judge could not, therefore, have held that the appellant could not sue the respondent in this Court, even when the allegedly infringing goods could be purchased, across the IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites, within its jurisdiction, on the premise that the respondent was innocent of the listings.”

The Court thus found that Kohinoor's plaint was maintainable.

Consequently, the Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order returning the plaint and restored Kohinoor's suit for further consideration.

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

Case No.: FAO(OS) (COMM) 66/2025

Appearance:

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, Advs.

For the Respondent: Mr. Raj Shekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Sindoora, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Mr. Wamic Wasim, Ms. Thithiksha Padmam and Mr. Anish Jandial, Advs.