Court finds Elder Projects Limited guilty of suppressing critical facts about prior trademark ownership and inconsistent claims, dismisses their plea for temporary injunction against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited
In a significant trademark infringement suit, the Bombay High Court, on March 9, 2026, vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favor of Elder Projects Limited against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited. The Court held that the Plaintiff, Elder Projects Limited, had deliberately suppressed material facts crucial to the case and failed to establish a prima facie case necessary for the grant of an equitable relief such as a temporary injunction.
The dispute centered on the trademark ‘ELDER’ used in the pharmaceutical sector. Elder Projects Limited claimed exclusive rights over a stylized device mark containing the word ‘ELDER’ and alleged infringement by Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited, whose mark bore a striking resemblance. The Plaintiff had initially secured an ex-parte injunction restraining the Defendant from using the mark and also obtained an order for seizure of infringing products.
However, upon the Defendant's application to vacate the injunction, the Court scrutinized the Plaintiff’s claims and conduct. It was revealed that Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL), incorporated in 1983, was the original adopter, user, and registered proprietor of the trademark ‘ELDER’. Notably, EPL had used a similar stylized font since 1983, predating Plaintiff’s claimed use since 1992-93. The Plaintiff had failed to disclose this critical fact, along with the familial relationships between directors of the Plaintiff and Defendant companies, and past associations with EPL.
Further, the Plaintiff suppressed adverse orders from the Delhi High Court in multiple related proceedings, where it was held that EPL was the exclusive owner of the ‘ELDER’ trademark and that the Plaintiff was merely a contract manufacturer for EPL until its liquidation. These findings were material and should have been disclosed while seeking an injunction.
The Court also noted inconsistent and contradictory stands taken by the Plaintiff in different proceedings, including an attempt to assert rights over the word ‘ELDER’ as well as the stylized mark selectively. The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that the current suit was for the stylized mark and not for the word ‘ELDER’, pointing out that the pleadings clearly included claims against the use of the word itself.
Moreover, the Court found that the urgency claimed by the Plaintiff for ex-parte relief was false, as the Defendant had been using the mark since 2015, and the Plaintiff was aware of it for years. The Plaintiff’s conduct was described as an attempt to misuse the Court’s discretionary power.
On the merits, the Court held that the Plaintiff was prima facie an infringer of EPL’s trademark rights and thus not entitled to equitable relief. The Plaintiff’s registration of the mark was under a shadow due to non-disclosure to the Trade Mark Registry and conflicting admissions before different authorities.
Consequently, the Court vacated the injunction, dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, discharged the Court Receiver, and ordered the return of seized goods. It also imposed token costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Plaintiff for misusing the judicial process.
This judgment underscores the principle that equitable reliefs like injunctions require full and fair disclosure of all material facts by the applicant. Suppression or misrepresentation can lead to immediate dismissal of relief and costs. The Court’s detailed analysis reiterates that a party found to be infringing third-party trademark rights cannot claim protection against another infringer.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Law - Suppression of material facts by plaintiff while seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction - Plaintiff's inconsistent stands in different proceedings undermine credibility - Ad-interim injunction vacated due to suppression of material facts and plaintiff's failure to establish prima facie case for temporary injunction.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order 39 Rule 4; Indian Evidence Act, Section 165; Copyright Act, 1957; Order 39 Rule 3 CPC; Section 33 of Trade Marks Act
