Delhi District Court
Mukesh Agarwal Trading As Tirupati ... vs Vijay Kumar Trading As Vijay Kumar Hing ... on 19 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010166352023
CS (COMM.) No. 1514/2023
CNR No. DLCT010166352023
In the matter of
Mukesh Aggarwal
Trading as Tirupati Chemicals Industries
Chamar Gate, Near New Dharmshala,
Choppaya Wala Nohra,
Hathras, Uttar Pradesh ......Plaintiff
Versus
Vijay Kumar,
Trading as Vijay Kumar Hing Wala,
Naval Nagar, Hathras,
Uttar Pradesh ......Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.11.2023
Date of Argument : 16.09.2025
Date of Judgement : 19.09.2025
Judgment:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present
suit seeking injunctive and declaratory reliefs and also
RAJESH by
Digitally signed
RAJESH
KUMAR GOEL
the damages filed by the plaintiff Mukesh Aggarwal
KUMAR Date:
2025.09.19
GOEL 16:44:08
+0530 trading as M/s Triputi Chemicals Industries against the
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 1 of 35 )
defendant Vijay Kumar trading as M/s Vijay Kumar
Hingwala, alleging infringement of
trademark/copyright.
Factual Matrix
2. The brief facts of the case, as made out in the
plaint are that plaintiff has established his business of,
Hinglal, Hing powder, Hing dana, Hing goli etc. long
way back in the year 1998; in the year 1999, plaintiff
coined, conceived and adopted the trademark/device
of "Om Mahadev Chaap" for manufacturing/selling of
bandhani hing (spices); with the passage of time
several trademark/trade dress/packaging has been
adopted by the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff used to
adopt a term ' AFGANI HING' alongwith their main
mark 'MAHADEV', which are as under:
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 2 of 35 )
3. It is stated that plaintiff has filed the applications
to register its mark 'MAHADEV' and its variant under
the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and details of the same are
as under:-
Trademark Date of Goods and Class Status
& Application
Application No. &
Date of User
OM MAHADEV 18/10/1999 Bandhani Abandoned
CHAAP, & Hing(Spices) being
OM, TRISHUL, 01/04/1999 included in Class
PINDI(Device) 30.
TM App. No.882375
Mahadev (Device) 29/11/2016 Hing & spices as Opposed
& & per class-30 area of
TM App. No.3421695 01/09/2010 jurisdiction for sale
in the whole of
India except the
eastern part of
india.
4. The plaintiff is a reputed entity and the
plaintiff's products have acquired enormous
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 3 of 35 )
reputation under the aforesaid trade mark
/label/packaging in the market; plaintiff's products are
recognized as a well-established and respected by the
public at large in the market; the plaintiff's products
are also available on www.indiamart.com and
www.tradeindia.com; the plaintiff has been
purchasing raw material of Asafoetide (Hing) from
authorized manufacturer/dealer/distributors of hing
who have been directly importing the raw material of
Asafoetoda (Hing) from Afghanistan for years.
5. It is the case of the plaintiff that M/s Vijay
Kumar HIng Wala is the proprietorship concern of Mr.
Vijay Kumar; on 28.06.2021, the plaintiff received
first time a cease and desist notice from the defendant
informing that the defendant is the registered
proprietor of the mark/label and that the use of
name/mark 'AFGHANI HING' by the plaintiff in
respect of 'hing (Asafoetida) amounts to infringement
of the trademark and copyright of the defendant; the
trade mark registry has not only granted registration to
a non-distinctive and highly descriptive mark but has
granted the same with the user claim since 31.5.1991 ;
the defendant has played fraud on the registry and in
order to claim monopoly over the work/mark
'AFGANI' or 'AFGANI HING', the defendant has
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 4 of 35 )
filed several trademark applications deliberately,
intentionally and with a malafide intention to block the
Trade Mark Register. The plaintiff has its own trading
style and pattern who has been selling its hing
products under a different mark/label/trade dress/
packaging and the comparison between the plaintiff's
mark/packaging with the defendant's impugned
mark/packaging is as under:-
PLAINTIFF'S DEFENDANT'S
TRADEMARK / ARTISTIC WORK/ TRADEMARK / LABEL/ PACKAGING
PACKAGING
AFGANI
/ /
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 5 of 35 )
.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that plaintiff has adopted the work 'AFGANI HING' which is a generic and common to trade term among the manufacturer/traders/dealer/distributor and consumers of hing products; there are several dealers/distributor in the market using the term/word 'AFGANI HING' to describe their products and its origin, therefore, no individual including the defendant can claim monopoly or exclusivity over the use of the term/work 'AFGANI' or 'AFGANI HING'; the plaintiff has not infringed the right of the defendant by way of using the term/words 'AFGANI HING'; the trademark registry has imposed condition over the use of device mark i.e " the mark shall be limited to the colors as shown in the representation on the form of the application and also mark should be use and read as whole ". The defendant was aware and known to the use of the Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 6 of 35 ) term/work 'AFGANI HING' by the plaintiff since the year 1998, as both the plaintiff and defendant have their business address in Hathrus, UP.
7. It is further stated that in order to curb such unfair trade practices of the defendant, the plaintiff had to file a rectification petition against the defendants's registered trademark bearing TM No. 2422251 on 3.7.2021 which is sub judice before the Trade Marks Registry, Delhi; On 24.09.2023, plaintiff again received cease and desist legal notice dated 23.09.2023 from the defendant with regard to adoption and use of the mark/label 'AFGANI HING'; plaintiff is carrying on its business of said goods under the trademark and work across the nation through its dealers and distributors including in the Central, Delhi; the plaintiff carry on its online business activity through www.indiamart.com and www.tradeindia.com which is accessed by the consumer at Central Delhi; the products of the plaintiff and the defendant are available for sale in the market of Central Delhi. It is further stated that frequent legal notices and verbal threats from the defendant are causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to the plaintiff; plaintiff is suffering and is likely to suffer great loss and harm due to the ill-motivated activities of the defendant, Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 7 of 35 ) hence, the present suit was filed.
8. Pertinent to mention that vide order dated 29.11.2023, preliminary issue relating to the maintainability of the suit before this court was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
9. The records would indicate that on 15.12.2023, the said issue was left open being a mixed question of law and facts, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court and summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendant.
10. Subsequently, written statement on behalf of the defendant came to be filed on 15.05.2024. On 22.05.2024, while allowing the application of the defendant seeking condonation of delay in filing the written statement, the written statement was taken on record subject to cost.
11. In the written Statement, defendant has taken various preliminary objections i.e (i) present suit is an abuse of the process of the law (ii) this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit, (iii) plaintiff has not complied with the section 12 A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for pre-institution mediation, (iv) the present suit filed by Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 8 of 35 ) the plaintiff is frivolous, farfetched and not based on true facts and circumstances (v) plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, (vi) plaintiff has filed the present suit to avoid the injunction orders as the plaintiff was itself anticipating a suit from the defendant etc.
12. On merits, it is stated that defendant is the sole proprietor of his proprietary business under the name and style M/s Vijay Kumar Hingh Wala at Hathras, UP; the trademark " AFGHANI HINGH" is duly registered and pending registration in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999; the defendant also conceived and adopted the unique trademark "AFGHANI HINGH" (word per se as well as in artistic label form) in relation to said goods in the year 1991; defendant earned tremendous reputation and goodwill under the said trademark for its superior quality and the trademark of the defendant gained huge success among the consumers for its highly differentiated taste; defendant has also spent a considerable amount of time, money, and labor in developing and maintaining the quality and taste of his products under the said trademark.
13. It is averred that the defendant is using the trademark/label 'AFGHANI HING and is the first and Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 9 of 35 ) original owner of the artistic work of the label 'AFGHANI HING'. It is further stated that the defendant is the author, owner, and proprietor of the copyright involved in the said trademark/label vide copyright registration numbers A-106896/2013 and A-116365/2017
14. As noted earlier, vide order dated 29.11.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this Court had framed the preliminary issue "Whether the suit is maintainable before this court in the present form in view of the prayer sought by the plaintiff?'. Vide order dated 15.12.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this Court kept the said issue open observing that the same is a mixed question of law and facts.
15. Accordingly, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 22.10.2024, following issues were framed by this Court:-
1. Whether the suit is maintainable before this court in the present form in view of the prayer sought by the plaintiff ? (OPP)
2. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present suit? (OPD)
3. Whether the plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands ? (OPD)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as prayed for in Prayer (a) of plaint? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for in Prayer (b) of Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 10 of 35 ) the plaint?(OPP)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages in the sum of Rs 8,50,000/- as prayed for in Prayer (c ) of the plaint? (OPP)
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for in Prayer ( d) of the plaint? (OPP)
8. Relief
16. Also, the Schedule of Second Case Management hearing was fixed and Ld. Court Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both the parties. The Schedule was modified dated 01.02.2025.
17. The Ld. Court Commissioner has already submitted her report dated 28.04.2025 to this court. In the said report it is stated that the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and defendant has examined himself as DW1 and his son Prashant Agarwal as DW2.
18. Here it is pertinent to mention that the examination of PW1 and DW2 was completed before the Ld. Court Commissioner but as far as DW1 is concerned, he was partly cross examined before the Ld. Court Commissioner and his further cross examination was completed before this Court.
19. PW1 Mukesh Aggarwal has filed his evidence Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 11 of 35 ) by way of affidavit ExPW1/A and has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. PW1 relied upon the documents i.e true copy of UP-VAT Certificate ExPW-1/1, true copy of Central Sales Tax Certificate Ex.PW-1/2, true copy of GST Certificate Ex.PW-1/3 (Colly), true copy of MSME registration Certificate Ex.PW-1/4, true copy of status report of aforesaid trade mark application No.882375 and No.3421695 filed by the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) , true copy of pictorial representations of the listing of the plaintiff as retrieved from www.indiamart.com Ex.PW-1/6, true copy of pictorial representations of the listing of the plaintiff as retrieved from www.tradeindia.com ExPW-1/7, true copies of few randomly picked invoices of the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/8 (colly), the original invoice bearing No.SA-315/19-20 dated 05.09.2019 at page 31 of Rs.61,425/- ExPW1/8 , Invoice No.378 dated 17.02.2020 of Rs.2,41,794/- from Sheetal Overseas Impacts at page 32 of the plaint and invoice No.23-24/46 dated 08.05.2023 from Govind Traders of Rs.3,95,324/- at page No.39 of the plaint Mark 'B' and Mark 'C' respectively, True copy of the GST Status report of the defendant ExPW1/9, true copy of Cease and Desist Notice dated 24.06.2021 (inadvertently mentioned as 28.06.2021 in evidence affidavit Ex.PW-1/A.) received from defendant Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 12 of 35 ) ExPW-1/10, photocopy of the reply filed by the plaintiff to the defendant's Legal Notice dated 24.06.2021 (inadvertently mentioned as 28.06.2021 in evidence affidavit ExPW-1/A.) Mark "D", true copies of the Trade Mark Applications No.22251. 5361688, 5141556, 2422253, 5361689 and 6097828 of the defendant Ex.PW-1/11 (Colly), copy of Registration Certificate of Trade Mark Application bearing No.2422253 under Trade Mark Act ExPW-1/12, copies of the Examination Report issued against the Trade Mark Applications filed by the defendant Ex.PW-1/13, true copies of the Public Search Report under the mark of AFGAN' or 'AFGHAN' in classes 29 and 30 ExPW-1/14, true copies of the Status Reports of the application filed under the mark of AFGAN' or AFGHAN' in classes 29 and 30 alongwith the examination reports ExPW-1/15, true copy of Rectification Petition filed by the plaintiff against the registered trademark of the defendant bearing application No.2422251 in class 30 Ex.PW-1/16, copy of Counter Statement filed by the defendant in response to Rectification petition in Trademark application bearing No.2422251 ExPW-1/17, true copy of Cease and Desist Notice dated 23.09.2023 received from defendant ExPW-1/18, true copies of the screenshot of Webpages pertaining to etymology Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 13 of 35 ) of Hing and its related articles Ex.PW-1/19 (Colly), true copies of screenshots of few web pages wherein several manufacturer/traders have listed their products and offering/selling Iling under the respective brand name/trade dress/packaging wherein the term 'AFGANI HING' inscribed therein Ex. PW-1/20, copies of the false and fabricated invoices/documents submitted by the defendant retrieved from wipindraservices.gov.in Ex.PW-1/21 (colly), true copy of screenshot of webpage of Indiamart listing of the defendant Ex.PW-1/22, original certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 Ex.PW-1/23, original affidavit under order XI Rule 6(3) of the Commercial Courts Act, commercial division is Ex.PW-1/24.
20. PW1 Mukesh Aggarwal was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
21. As noted herein above, defendant has examined himself as DW1 and his son as DW2. DW1 Vijay Kumar Agarwal filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW-1/A and has deposed on the stand as taken in the written statement. DW1 relied upon the documents ie:- copies of registration of his firm ExDW-1/1, copies of invoices issued to him for packaging material ExDW-1 /2 (colly), copies of invoices issued Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 14 of 35 ) by him under the trademark Mark X, copies of invoices issued by him for advertisement and promotions Mark A and the copies of trademark and copyright certificates in favour of the defendant ExDW-1/5, printouts of Registration of the defendant firm, copies of invoices issued by the defendant under the trademark Ex.DW-1/3 , copies of invoices issued by the defendant for advertisement promotions Ex DW-1/4, Legal Proceeding certificate for trademark application No. 882375 Ex. DW-1/6, Internet print out of the trademark status of various trademarks of the defendant Ex.DW-1/7, copy of Legal Notice sent to the plaintiff by the defendant for infringement of its trademark Ex.DW-1/8, reply to the legal notice sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Ex. DW-1/9, copy of the GST registration certificate Ex.DW-1/10, copy of certificate for commercial taxes department Uttar Pradesh/Sales Tax Certificate Ex.DW-1/11, FSSAI certificate of the defendant Ex.DW-1/12, copy of Tax Registration Certificate/Dealer Registration Certificate Ex DW-1/13, certificate of Prevention of Food Adulteration License Ex.DW-1/14.
22. DW2 Prashant Agarwal has also filed his evidence by way of affidavit ExDW-2/1. He deposed that he had taken out the printouts of ExDW-1/1, Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 15 of 35 ) ExDW-1/7 (colly) and ExDW-1/10. He proved the certificate u/s 63 BSA,2023 ExDW-2/A.
23. DW1 Vijay Agarwal and DW2 Prashant Agarwal were cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
24. Ld. Counsels for both the parties have filed the written synopsis of arguments and have argued the matter orally as well and the same shall be considered wherever relevant.
25. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel of both the parties.
26. First of all, I shall decide issue no.2 pertaining to the territorial jurisdiction, because in case it is decided that this court has no territorial jurisdiction then it would not be appropriate to give the findings on the rest of the issues as the same would be without jurisdiction.
Issue No.2 Whether this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present case ? (OPD)
27. Before proceedings further, I deem it necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act,1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 pertaining to Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 16 of 35 ) jurisdiction in case of their infringement, which are as under:-
"134. Suit for infringement, etc. to be instituted before District Court.--
(1) No suit--
(a) for the infringement of a registered trade mark; or
(b) relating to any right in a registered trade mark; or
(c) for passing off arising out of the use by the defendant of any trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark, whether registered or unregistered, shall be instituted in any court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2) For the purpose of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-
section (1), a "District Court having jurisdiction"
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) or any other law for the time being in force, include a District Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or proceeding, or, where there are more than one such persons any of them, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain.
Explanation.--For the purposes of sub-section (2), "person" includes the registered proprietor and the registered user."
Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957:-
"62. Jurisdiction of court over matters arising under this Chapter.--
(1) Every suit or other civil proceeding arising under this Chapter in respect of the infringement of copyright in any work or the infringement of any other right Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 17 of 35 ) conferred by this Act shall be instituted in the district court having jurisdiction.
(2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), a "district court having jurisdiction" shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, include a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, at the time of the institution of the suit or other proceeding, the person instituting the suit or other proceeding or, where there are more than one such persons, any of them actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain."
28. Both the aforesaid provisions of law along with the provision of section 20 CPC were examined and discussed by our own Hon'ble High court in the case of Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd vs Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376. In this case Hon'ble High Court after referring to the cases of Patel Roadways Ltd Vs. Prasad Trading Co., (1991) 4 SCC 270, New Moga Transport Co. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd (2004) 4 SCC 677 and Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd v. Sanjay Dalia: (2015) 10 SCC 161, observed that the interpretation given to the expression "carries on business" in the context of a defendant under section 20 of the Code has also been employed in the context of a plaintiff under the said sections 134(2) and 62(2). Thus, in addition to the places where suits could be filed under section 20 of the Code, the plaintiff can also institute a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 18 of 35 ) as the case may be, by taking advantage of the provisions of section 134(2) or section 62(2), respectively. Both the latter provisions are in pari materia. It was further observed that under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a corporation (which includes a company) , which are as under:-
(a) First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office.
In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office.
(b) Next is the case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office but cannot sue at the place of the subordinate office.
(c) The third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of section 134 (2) and 62 (2) at the place of the principal office.
(d) The fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at the place of the principal office nor at the place of the subordinate office but at some other place. In this case, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office and not at the place of the subordinate office. And, consequently, it could institute a suit at the place of its principal office but not at the place of its subordinate office.
29. Here it is pertinent to mention that one must not get confused between two terminologies i.e. "whether Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 19 of 35 ) there is any cause of action to file the suit " and "where the cause of action has arisen ". It is clarified that while the issue at hand, this court would not be adjudicating on issue whether there is any cause of action or not to file the present suit and as of now, the only issue for consideration is whether cause of action, if any, has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court or not? Thus, in the present case, from the submissions made, the moot question to be decided by this court is "Whether any part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this court or not?
30. In the written statement, one of the objections taken by the defendant is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case as no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. According to the defendant the cause of action, if any, has arisen wholly or in part within the jurisdiction of the Court situated at Hathrus, UP and not at Delhi.
31. The averments regarding cause of action and jurisdiction have been pleaded in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the plaint, which are being reproduced as under:-
CAUSE OF ACTION
37. That the cause of action is continuous one and first time arose on 28-06-2021, when the plaintiff received first time 'cease and desist' notice dated:
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 20 of 35 ) 24-06-2021 from the Defendant. It again arose on 24-09-2023, when the plaintiff again received cease and desist notice dated: Sept 23, 2023 with regard to trademark 'AFGANI HINGH' and its copyright work..... It further arose when the Plaintiff was informed by its network of dealers and distributors that the Defendant had been making verbal threats at their place of business to forthwith cease the sale and distribution of Plaintiff's goods under the term/name 'AFGANI HING' or deal with the same in any other manner. That the cause of action is a continuing one in law and continues to subsist each day the Defendant perpetrates fraud on members of the Trade and disrupting the peaceful enjoyment of the Plaintiff's business activity by making unjustified threats and false, malicious and misleading statements.
JURISDICTION
38. That this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit as the Plaintiff is carrying on its business of said goods under the said trademark and work across the nation through its dealers and distributors including in the market of Central, Delhi. The plaintiff carry on its online business activity through www.indiamart.com and www.tradeindia.com which is accessed by the consumer at Central Delhi. The Defendant also carry on its online business activity through www.indiamart.com which is accessed by the consumer at Central Delhi. Aforesaid websites also have the option of requesting for placing inquiry and order in Central Delhi and therefore also a part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court to entertain and try the present suit. That the products of the Plaintiff under aforesaid packaging and the products of the defendant bearing the impugned mark 'AFGANI HING' are available for sale in the market of Central Delhi which fall in the Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 21 of 35 ) jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The defendants have every intention to sell/provide their goods under the impugned trademark in the market of Central Delhi viz. Hauz Qazi, Kamla Market, Rajinder Nagar, Daryaganj, Sadar Bazar, Civil Lines, etc. The damage to the Plaintiff's business also takes place in Central Delhi. Screenshot of webpage of Indiamart listing of the Defendant is annexed herewith as DOCUMENTS-22.
32. According to the plaintiff, cause of action first time arose on 28.6.2021 when the plaintiff received first cease and desist notice dated 24.6.2021 from the defendant. It arose again on 24.9.2023, when plaintiff received the second cease and desist notice dated 23.09.2023, in respect of Trade Mark ' Afghani Hing' and its copyright work. It further arose when the plaintiff was informed by its network of dealers and distributors that the defendant had been making verbal threats at their place of business.
33. Similarly, according to the plaintiff, this court has jurisdiction as the plaintiff is carrying his business through its dealers and distributors in the market of Central Delhi which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further being claimed that the plaintiff is carrying his business through online mode also like India Mart, Trade India etc., and the customers of the plaintiff have the access of the same. It is also stated that defendant is also carrying online business activity Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 22 of 35 ) which is being accessed by the customers at Central Delhi and the last ground for conferring the jurisdiction is that the product of the plaintiff and the defendant having the impugned mark are available for sale in the market of Central Delhi, therefore, this court has the jurisdiction.
34. Here it would be relevant to refer to the prayers made in the present suit, which are as under:-
" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that a decree may please be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant to the following effects:-
a) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare that usage of word 'AFGANI HING' or 'AFGANI along with the trademark 'MAHADEV and its varaint' and its trade dress/ packaging will not amount to infringement and its use does not violate any statutory/ common law rights of defendant, if any. The threats made out by the Defendant against the Plaintiff's adoption and use of word 'AFGANI' or 'AFGANI HING' in aforesaid trade dress/ packaging are unjustifiable and that the Plaintiff's said trade dress/packaging does not infringe the trademark/copyright or violate any rights of the Defendant;
b) A decree for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, their proprietor or partners as the case may be servants, agents, affiliates, associate and representatives and all others acting for and on their behalf from the continuance of threats against Plaintiff's adoption and use of the term Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 23 of 35 ) 'AFGANI/'AFGANI HING' in its trade dress/packaging any form or manner.
c) Pass a decree of damages in the sum of Rs.
2,50, 000L or other amount of damages in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant on account of loss to the business and reputation caused to the Plaintiff by illegal and unlawful issuance of groundless threats against the Plaintiff for adoption and use of a common to trade term 'AFGANI /'AFGANI HING' for hing.
d) An order for directing the defendant to withdraw their impugned trademark/word mark 'AFGANI bearing TM Application no.5361688 in class - 30 and TM Application no.5361689 and Class 35.
e) For an order for costs of the proceedings in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
f) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
35. If the averments made in the plaint particularly as made in cause of action and jurisdiction paragraphs coupled with the prayers made, as noted herein above, are put to close scrutiny, it would reveal that by way of the present proceedings the plaintiff has challenged the cease and desist notices dated 24.06.2021 and 23.09.2023, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff and consequently declaring that the plaintiff is not infringing any trade mark or copyright belonging to the defendant and thereafter the injunctive relief has Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 24 of 35 ) been sought restraining the defendant from using or adopting the Term "Afghani/Afghani Hing" on its products.
36. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 and has relied/proved the first cease and desist notice dated 24.6.2021 as ExPW1/10, reply given by the plaintiff to the said notice as Mark D and the second cease and desist notice dated 23.09.2023 as ExPW1/18. The aforesaid cease and desist notices ExPW1/10 and ExPW1/18 admittedly have been issued by the defendant addressed to the plaintiff as " Mukesh Aggarwal, M/s Triputi chemicals Industries, Choppaya Nohra, Chamar Gate, Hathras-204101 (UP)" and the address of the defendant has been shown as " Naval Nagar, Hathras, UP". Similarly, the first notice was replied by the plaintiff vide reply dated 29.6.2023 Mark D and the same addresses of the plaintiff and the defendant have been referred to therein. In the memo of parties also, as filed by the plaintiff, the only addresses belonging to the defendant and plaintiff as well, are of Hathras, UP.
37. Thus, it is crystal clear that both the parties are carrying and doing business at Hathras, UP only and none of the parties has any other branch or place of Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 25 of 35 ) business or office in the other part of the country. That being so, the contention of the plaintiff that cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court is liable to be rejected outrightly.
38. Coming to the next contention of the plaintiff that the product of the defendant having the impugned mark of Afghani/Afghani Hing are available in the Central Market of Delhi, appears to have been made just to bring the present case within the jurisdiction of this Court, which this Court otherwise does not have. I fail to understand even if the products of the plaintiff are available for sale within the jurisdiction of this court, how it would be relevant to decide the present issue qua jurisdiction. As far as the availability of the defendant's products having the impugned mark, is concerned, the same is vague, general and not specific. The reference to the internet platforms has also been made without any substantial evidence or grounds which is evident from the evidence led by the parties.
39. Here it would be pertinent to refer to the relevant cross examination of PW1 Mukesh Aggarwal ( plaintiff), which is being reproduced as under:-
".........It is correct that I have no place of business in Delhi. (Vol). However, I sell products in Delhi. It is not in my knowledge that the defendant has any Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 26 of 35 ) place of business in Delhi. It is correct that I have only one place of business i.e. Hathras, U.P. It is correct that in the present suit I have mentioned only one address of the defendant, which is situated in Hathras, U.P. It is correct that I have not disclosed the name and contact details/address of any of my so called sellers/distributors to whom I have stated that the defendant threatened without any ground.It is incorrect to suggest that there is no seller or distributor of mine to whom the defendant has threatened.
Q.2. Where are the said sellers/distributors referred to by you in the suit are situated?
Ans. The so called distributors referred to in my suit to whom I state that threats were extended by the defendant could be placed anywhere in India. It is incorrect to suggest that the defendant has not contacted any of mine seller/distributors and threatened them.
************** It is wrong to suggest that I am not aware of nonfiling of reply dated 30.06.2021. It is wrong to suggest that I have deliberately suppressed the reply dated 30.06.2021 at the time of filing of the suit. It is correct that none of the distributors, to whom I have alleged threats were made by the defendant, are situated in Delhi.
At this stage , Ld counsel for the defendant has shown Ex.PW-1/6 and ExPW-1/7 to the witness and asked him the following question.
Q.24 I put it to you that other than referring the web page of www.indiamart.com you have not shown any instance of sale by yourself or by defendant in Delhi?
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 27 of 35 ) Ans. I say that www.indiamart.com is only a platform for advertisement and not for selling of product like Amazon and Flipkart.
Q.25. As per you is it correct that the defendant has not shown any product in Delhi using www.indiamart.com ?
Ans. It is correct........"
40. From the aforesaid testimony of PW1 Mukesh Aggarwal, it stands established that the defendant has no other place of business in Delhi, except at Hathras, UP. It has also come on the record that the plaintiff did not disclose any other address of so called sellers, distributors of the defendant, which again appears to have been raised just to bring the case within the jurisdiction of this court. PW1 Mukesh Aggarwal categorically stated that none of the distributors to whom he allows to have received the threats are situated in Delhi. Thus, defendant has having no place of business at Delhi and he's carrying or working from Hathras ,UP only that being so, no cause of action wholly or in part has arisen within the jurisdiction of courts situated at Delhi.
41. This is further corroborated from the testimony of DW1 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. In his evidence filed by way of an affidavit ExDW1/A, in paragraph 20, he deposed as under:-
20. I say this Hon'ble court does not have the Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 28 of 35 ) territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the present suit. It is pertinent to note that territorial jurisdiction is being claimed on the basis of Plaintiff's business of the said goods under the trade mark and work across the nation through its dealers and distributors including in the market of Central Delhi and its online business activities. The Plaintiff also stated that the Defendant also carry on its online business activities which is accessed by the consumer at Central Delhi. The mala fide of the Plaintiff is on the face of record as the suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff MR. MUKESH AGARWAL, who has claimed that he is trading as TIRUPATI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES at CHAMAR GATE, NEAR NEW DHARAMSHALA, CHAOPPAYA WALA NOHRA, HATHRAS. It is also pertinent to note that neither any dealer nor distributor or any other person has instituted the present suit and the alleged dealers and distributors are not even impleaded as a Plaintiff. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that existence of re-
seller/retailers does not confirm territorial jurisdiction in such matters. The Plaintiff has no existence in Delhi, no instance of any actual online or offline sale of the goods of the Plaintiff and Defendant in Delhi have been placed on record. This Hon'ble Court does not possess necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the suit. In their own documents filed by the Plaintiff with the plaint there is not even a single sale instance and document of Delhi. In any case, the Defendant states that the Plaintiff and Defendant both are residing and carrying on business etc., at Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, and cause of action wholly or in part has also arisen within the Commercial Court, Aligarh, under such circumstances the Plaintiff has to file a suit at that place. The Defendant humbly relies on Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd, Vs. Sanjay Dalia & Anr (AIR 2015 SC 3479), therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present suit."
42. Although DW1 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal was Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 29 of 35 ) cross examined at length by the Ld Counsel for the plaintiff, however, the testimony of DW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged regarding the claim made by the defendant in his affidavit ExDW1/A regarding the jurisdiction issue. Not even a suggestion was put to DW1 to negate the stand of the defendant in this regard, which is otherwise in conformity with other evidence available on record.
43. This takes me to the another contention of the plaintiff that the products of the defendant having the impugned mark were available on the internet platform i.e. www.india mart.com.
44. With the rapid rise of e-commerce and digital trade, legal questions often arise about whether a website can be held liable for trademark infringement in a jurisdiction different from where it is operated. The central issue would be whether a website is "interactive" enough to subject itself to legal proceedings different from where it is operated. It has to be evaluated by examining the activity of the website in the forum jurisdiction. To determine whether a website is interactive in the context of trademark violation and thus subject to jurisdiction, courts generally apply the "purposeful availment" and interactivity tests.
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 30 of 35 )
45. The basic principles governing the issue of territorial jurisdiction in case of commercial business through internet websites are fairly well established. In the case of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. vs. A. Murali Krishna Reddy & Anr., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780 , while answering a reference, a Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the following principles:
"58. We summarise our findings on the questions referred for our opinion as under:
Question (i): For the purposes of a passing off action, or an infringement action where the Plaintiff is not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of a court, in what circumstances can it be said that the hosting of a universally accessible website by the Defendants lends jurisdiction to such Court where such suit is filed ("the forum court") Answer: For the purposes of a passing off action, or an infringement action where the plaintiff is not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of a court, and in the absence of a long-arm statute, in order to satisfy the forum court that it has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the Plaintiff would have to show that the Defendant "purposefully availed" itself of the jurisdiction of the forum court. For this it would have to be prima facie shown that the nature of the activity indulged in by the Defendant by the use of the website was with an intention to conclude a commercial transaction with the website user and that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the plaintiff within the forum state.
Question (ii): In a passing off or infringement Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 31 of 35 ) action, where the defendant is sought to be sued on the basis that its website is accessible in the forum state, what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to prima facie establish that the forum court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
Answer: For the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in order to show that some part of the cause of action has arisen in the forum state by the use of the internet by the Defendant the Plaintiff will have to show prima facie that the said website, whether euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive" was specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions. The Plaintiff would have to plead this and produce material to prima facie show that some commercial transaction using the website was entered into by the Defendant with a user of its website within the forum state resulting in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state.
Question (iii): Is it permissible for the Plaintiff to establish such prima facie case through "trap orders" or "trap transactions"?
Answer: The commercial transaction entered into by the Defendant with an internet user located within the jurisdiction of the forum court cannot possibly be a solitary trap transaction since that would not be an instance of "purposeful" availment by the Defendant. It would have to be a real commercial transaction that the Defendant has with someone not set up by the Plaintiff itself. If the only evidence is in the form of a series of trap transactions, they have to be shown as having been obtained using fair means. The Plaintiff seeking to establish jurisdiction on the basis of such trap transactions would have to aver unambiguously in the plaint, and also place along with it supporting material, to prima facie show that the trap transactions Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 32 of 35 ) relied upon satisfy the above test."
46. Reverting back to the case at hand, when PW1 Mukesh Agarwal was asked that he has not shown any instance of sale by the defendant through Indiamart in Delhi, he replied that that Indiamart is only a platform for advertisement and not for selling a product like Amazon and Flipkart. PW1 was specifically asked that is it correct that the defendant has not shown any product in Delhi using Indiamart? PW1 replied that it is correct. The products of the defendant having the impugned mark were not available even on the internet platform, therefore, this would also not help the plaintiff to confer the jurisdiction to this court.
47. As far as the availability of the products of the defendant is concerned, the defendant has simply put its products on the internet at the most as a promotion. It simply amounts to active solicitation only. Further, to exercise the jurisdiction based on website or internet, plaintiff was supposed to show that the said website or the internet rose to the level of purposeful availment. Mere access to a passive website or the e- platform is not enough to confer the jurisdiction and for that purpose it has to be interactive, which is not there in the present case. Thus, plaintiff has failed to show that the defendant has engaged in some Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 33 of 35 ) commercial activity within the jurisdiction of this Court through e- commerce platform.
48. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that in the present case, no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present case. Hence, issue No.2 is decided in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff.
49. Since this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction, therefore, it would not be appropriate to give findings and opinion on the rest of the issues touching the merits of the present case.
50. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the plaint is directed to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC as per the rules.
51. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date:
GOEL 2025.09.19
16:44:35
+0530
(Rajesh Kumar Goel)
District Judge (Commercial)-02
Central, Tis Hazari Courts
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 34 of 35 )
19.09.2025
Announced in the Open Court
today i.e: 19.09.2025
Mukesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Kumar Date of judgment 19.09.2025 (Page 35 of 35 )