The Division Bench allowed the appeal. The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for lack of territorial jurisdiction. The Court restored the suit and directed listing before the Roster Bench.
Kohinoor Seed Fields filed the suit. Kohinoor had entered a non-exclusive Marketing Agreement (executed in Delhi, valid till 31 December 2022), permitting Veda to market specific Kohinoor hybrids under TADAAKHA, SADANAND and BASANT marks. Kohinoor issued non-renewal notice on 27 September 2022. Veda then promoted non-Kohinoor hybrids like GK-224 BG II using the marks with identical get-up and packaging. Kohinoor discovered this via WhatsApp from traders. Infringing products appeared on IndiaMart and Kalgudi platforms accessible pan-India including Delhi.
The company alleged infringement of its registered trademarks TADAAKHA and SADANAND in Class 31. The company also alleged passing off of the BASANT mark. Veda used marks like VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II on non-Kohinoor hybrid cotton seeds. This occurred post-termination of the Marketing Agreement. Kohinoor sought permanent injunction under Sections 28-29 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Single Judge allowed Veda’s application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on 12 July 2023, finding that no cause of action arose in Delhi despite Kohinoor’s head office there. The Single Judge applied the ratios of Dhodha House, Banyan Tree Holding, and Ultra Home Construction to reject the jurisdiction of the Court. Kohinoor filed the present appeal.
In the instant proceedings, Veda again argued that no cause of action arose in Delhi, claiming that the Marketing Agreement was irrelevant and separate, and the said e-listings were by third parties. Kohinoor countered that trademark registration in Delhi, Agreement execution in Delhi, and e-platform availability formed cause of action.
The Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla found merit in Kohinoor’s submissions that registration, Agreement execution, and e-availability conferred jurisdiction. The Court went on to analyse each of the judgements relied on by the Single Bench, ultimately finding that the ratio of Dhodha House had been incorrectly applied.
The Court also found that the infringing goods are purchasable via IndiaMart/Kalgudi in Delhi. This constitutes purposeful availment per Banyan Tree Holdings and World Wrestling Entertainment. Having found that a substantial part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, the Court also rejected the invocation of the Ultra Home Construction doctrine by the Single Judge. The Court also expressed reservations regarding the correctness of the ratio of Ultra Home Construction but refrained from delving deeper into the same.
In result, the Court held the plaint maintainable in Delhi. The Court allowed the appeal. The Court quashed the Single Judge order and dismissed Veda’s application. The Court restored the suit to the file of the learned Single Judge for adjudication on merits. The Court imposed no costs.
Cases relied on:
1. Dhodha House v. S K Maingi, (2006) 9 SCC 41
2. Banyan Tree Holding v. A Murali Krishna Reddy, 2010 (42) PTC 361 (Del)
3. World Wide Wrestling Entertainment v. Reshma Collection, 2014 (60) PTC 452 (DB)
4. Ultra Home Construction v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey, 227 (2016) DLT 320 (DB)
Appearances:
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.
