IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J.
Kubota Corporation - Petitioner
Versus
Godabari Agro Machinery And Services India Private Limited & Ors. - Respondents
I.A. 1778/2024 IN CS(COMM) 655/2023
Decided on : 12-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff alleges patent infringement and seeks injunction. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
I.A. 1778/2024 (under order VII Rule 10 of the CPC filed by the defendant no.3)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant no.3 under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) seeking return of plaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court to try and adjudicate the present suit.
2. Notice in this application was issued on 24th January 2024. Reply has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.
3. Submissions were heard on behalf of the parties on 19th December 2024, 16th April 2025, 14th July 2025 and 15th July 2025, when the judgment was reserved.
4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2 support the present application filed on behalf of the defendant no.3.
BRIEF FACTS
5. Brief facts stated in the plaint, which are relevant in deciding the present application, are as follows:
5.1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of patents along with other ancillary reliefs.
5.2. The plaintiff, a Japanese multinational conglomerate, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of agricultural machinery and equipment having its clientele and base of operation spread across several countries including India. The plaintiff has pioneered automation in the harvesting technologies and develops smart agricultural machinery utilizing robotic and information and communications technology (ICT) to offer labour saving, productivity enhancing and higher quality products such as self-propelled combine harvesters, tractors, transplanters and equipment.
5.3. The plaintiff developed a self-propelled combine harvester with an innovative track system, highly durable transmission and quick and easy maintenance under the name HARVES KING (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’s product’), which embodies the suit patents being Indian patents no. 249257, 294814, 312782, 354002 and 371938.
5.4. In 2008, the plaintiff also set up a subsidiary company in India, namely, Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Private Limited, which supplies the plaintiff’s products in the Indian market. The plaintiff has over 251 distributors across India.
5.5. The defendant no.3, a company based in China, is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of goods including agricultural machinery and competes in the same market segment as that of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 2, also a company based in China, is a subsidiary of the defendant no.3 and is involved in its overseas business. The defendant no.1, a company based in Orissa (India), is an importer and assembler of products manufactured by the defendants no.2 and 3. The products of the defendants no.2 and 3 are thereafter advertised and sold by the defendant no.1 through various dealerships and offices across India.
5.6. The plaintiff, in or around April 2023, became aware that the defendants have been marketing and selling a self-propelled combine harvester under the name ‘RUILONG PLUS ++’ (hereinafter ‘impugned product’), which is materially similar/ identical to that of the plaintiff’s product. Pertinently, the impugned product sold/ offered for sale in India bears the logos of the defendants no.2 and 3.
5.7. The plaintiff started receiving complaints from its distributors that its potential customers are purchasing the impugned product which is materially similar yet substantially cheaper as compared to the plaintiff’s product. The plaintiff, therefore, through a private investigation agency, purchased the impugned product amounting to Rs. 22,00,000/- from its authorized dealer. The impugned product was then disassembled to examine and analyse the elements of the granted claims of the suit patents in the impugned product, from which it became apparent that the impugned product has all the essentials of the independent claims of the suit patents. Pertinentl
The Court upheld jurisdiction for patent infringement claims when defendants' products are offered for sale within the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement cases requires proof of actual sales in the jurisdiction, not mere trap transactions, supported by relevant documentation.
Civil Law - Return of plaint - Territorial jurisdiction - It is not possible to reach at a conclusion that no cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this court on a mere re....
Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.
The main legal point established is the application of Section 20(b) of the CPC in determining jurisdiction for filing a suit, especially in cases involving online transactions and business activitie....
Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.
Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits requires courts to accept plaint allegations as true; future apprehension of infringement can establish justiciability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere accessibility of a website in a particular jurisdiction does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction, and real commercial t....
A part of the cause of action can arise in a court's jurisdiction even if services are provided online, contingent on the nature of the services advertised.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.