Bombay High Court vacates ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction in trademark dispute; Rs.1 lakh costs awarded

A Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Justice Sandeep V. Marne, heard interlocutory applications in Commercial IP Suit (L) No.27106 of 2025 concerning allegations of trademark infringement and passing off. The Court considered an application by the defendant to vacate an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff on 26 September 2025 and, with consent of parties, heard the plaintiff’s interim application for a temporary injunction on merits.

The court found that the plaintiff had secured the ad‑interim order without full and fair disclosure and therefore vacated the injunction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Considering the overall conspectus of the case I am of the view that Plaintiff has moved this Court for injunction without notice to the Defendant by grossly suppressing material facts. It has failed to disclose all true and material facts and has accordingly disentitled itself from securing equitable relief of injunction from this Court. Suppression of material facts has a clear bearing on Plaintiff’s entitlement to temporary injunction. Suppression of facts by the Plaintiff has resulted in a situation where this Court is misled in believing that object of injunction would be defeated by delay in service of notice on Defendant. In my view therefore, perfect case is made out for vacation of ad‑interim injunction order dated 26 September 2025.” The judge further observed that “injunction is an equitable relief and a party seeking the same must approach the Court with clean hands.”

Background The plaintiff, Elder Prrojects Limited, sued Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited for infringement and passing off in respect of a registered device mark used on pharmaceutical products. The plaintiff obtained registration of a device mark (certificate dated 12 June 2024) and a copyright registration for its label, and secured an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction and appointment of a court receiver on 26 September 2025 restraining the defendant from using marks containing the word “ELDER” or deceptively similar marks.

The defendant applied under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC to vacate the ex‑parte injunction, alleging material suppression by the plaintiff. The defendant produced evidence that Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (EPL) had been the first adopter and registered proprietor of the word mark “ELDER” since the 1980s, that the plaintiff had acted as a contract manufacturer for EPL until 2016, and that the plaintiff and defendant’s directors were related and had prior associations with EPL. The defendant also produced multiple adverse orders of the Delhi High Court and correspondence with the Official Liquidator of EPL showing earlier proceedings and inconsistent positions taken by the plaintiff.

The High Court reviewed authorities on non‑disclosure in ex‑parte applications, including the duty to make “full and accurate disclosure of all material facts,” and noted binding principles that a litigant cannot choose which facts to disclose. The judge recorded that the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to disclose (i) EPL’s prior registration and use of the “ELDER” mark, (ii) the relationship and past roles of company directors, (iii) four prior Delhi High Court orders adverse to the plaintiff’s claims in respect of the ELDER mark, and (iv) proceedings before the Official Liquidator. The Court found these matters material to the question whether the ad‑interim injunction should have been granted without notice.

Applying settled law on ex‑parte relief and suppression, the Court held that the plaintiff’s inconsistent stances across fora and failure to disclose material facts disentitled it to equitable relief. The judge also found that, independent of suppression, the plaintiff had not made out a prima facie case: the plaintiff had potentially been an infringer or at least in a weak position given prior proceedings and admissions. The Court therefore concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

Outcome and directions The Court allowed the defendant’s interim application, vacated the ad‑interim injunction dated 26 September 2025, and dismissed the plaintiff’s interim application for temporary injunction. The court receiver was discharged, goods seized under the receiver’s order were directed to be returned to the defendant forthwith, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs.1,00,000 as costs to the defendant within four weeks. Both interim applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026:BHC-OS:6101 Case Title: Elder Prrojects Limited v. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Bhupesh Dhumatkar, Mr. Rohit Pandey & Mr. Bhavin Shah i/b Mr. Dinesh Dubey For the Respondent(s): Mr. Hiren Kamod with Mr. Nihit Nagpal, Ms. Nisha Kaba, Mr. Abhijit Singh, Mr. Anees Patel & Ms. Areen Shaikh