Bombay High Court Partly Vacates Ex-Parte Injunction: “Misrepresentation of Trade Mark and Selective Disclosure Cannot Be Tolerated in Judicial Proceedings”

---

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court partly vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted to the plaintiff in relation to the defendant’s registered trade mark. The Court held that the plaintiff knowingly misrepresented material particulars while obtaining the injunction, particularly by:

1. Falsely depicting the defendant’s trade mark in a truncated form.
2. Quoting only a selective portion of the defendant’s reply to a cease and desist notice, creating a misleading impression.

As a result:

• The injunction concerning the defendant’s registered trade mark (six rhinos) was vacated.
• The injunction concerning the defendant’s use of the trade mark “SH” was upheld.

The Court also ordered that the seized goods bearing the six-rhino trade mark be returned to the defendants, while those bearing the “SH” trade mark would remain seized.

---

Facts

The case arose from a trade mark infringement dispute. The plaintiff had obtained an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on October 24, 2024, against the defendants. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant’s trade mark was deceptively similar to its own.

The defendants challenged the injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, arguing that the plaintiff had secured the order by making:

1. False and misleading statements regarding the defendant’s trade mark.
2. Selective disclosure of facts that misrepresented the actual situation.

Defendant’s Claims

1. Misrepresentation of Trade Mark
   • The plaintiff selectively presented the defendant’s registered trade mark in a truncated form, showing only two rhinos instead of the full mark consisting of six rhinos.
   • This misrepresentation misled the Court into believing that the defendant’s trade mark was similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark (which consists of two elephants facing each other).
2. Selective Quoting of Reply to Cease and Desist Notice
   • The plaintiff quoted only a small portion of the defendant’s response to the cease and desist notice.
   • This selective quote created a false impression that the defendant had admitted the likelihood of consumer confusion.
   • In reality, the full reply contained a clear denial of infringement, which was omitted in the plaintiff’s pleadings.

Plaintiff’s Defense

1. The defendant had itself used a truncated version of its trade mark in its reply to the cease and desist notice.
2. The full registered trade mark was included in the plaint, and therefore, there was no suppression of facts.
3. The selected portion of the defendant’s reply was paraphrased accurately, and the meaning was not distorted.
4. Even if an incorrect statement was made, it did not justify vacating the entire injunction.
5. The Court still had the discretion under Order XXXIX Rule 4 to retain the injunction in the interest of justice.

---

Issues

1. Did the plaintiff misrepresent the defendant’s registered trade mark while obtaining the ex-parte ad-interim injunction?
2. Did the plaintiff selectively quote from the defendant’s reply to create a misleading impression?
3. Should the Court vacate the ex-parte injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC?

---

Petitioner’s Arguments (Defendants)

The defendants, seeking to vacate the injunction, argued:

1. The Plaintiff Misrepresented the Defendant’s Trade Mark
   • The plaintiff deliberately showed only a pair of rhinos in its pleadings while the full trade mark consisted of six rhinos.
   • The false representation was repeated throughout the plaint and in the interim application.
   • This caused the Court to erroneously conclude that the defendant’s trade mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s.
2. The Plaintiff’s Pleadings Selectively Quoted from the Defendant’s Reply
   • The plaintiff quoted only a portion of the defendant’s reply to misrepresent the defendant’s position.
   • The omitted portion of the reply clearly stated that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks.
   • The plaintiff’s manipulation of the reply amounted to fraud on the Court.
3. Fraudulent Conduct Vitiates Judicial Orders
   • The defendants cited S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994), where the Supreme Court held that fraud vitiates all proceedings.
   • They also relied on Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011), where the Supreme Court warned against the misuse of ex-parte injunctions.
4. Denial of Opportunity to Defend
   • If the Court had issued notice before granting the injunction, the defendants could have:
     • Proven that their trade mark consisted of six rhinos.
     • Clarified that their reply did not contain an admission.
   • The plaintiff’s misrepresentations deprived the defendants of their right to be heard.

---

Respondent’s Arguments (Plaintiff)

The plaintiff defended the injunction by arguing:

1. The Truncated Trade Mark Was Based on the Defendant’s Own Assertions
   • The defendants themselves had depicted their trade mark as two rhinos in their reply.
   • The plaintiff merely followed the defendant’s own representation.
2. The Entire Registered Trade Mark Was Disclosed
   • The plaintiff included the full trade mark in the plaint and did not suppress facts.
   • The Court had access to the full registration certificate.
3. Selective Quoting Did Not Amount to Misrepresentation
   • The plaintiff paraphrased the defendant’s reply before quoting it.
   • The quoted portion did not alter the meaning of the full response.
4. Ex-Parte Injunctions Can Be Retained in the Interest of Justice
   • Even if the plaintiff made an incorrect statement, the Court has the discretion under Order XXXIX Rule 4 to continue the injunction if justice demands it.

---

Analysis of the Law

The Court examined Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, which states:

• An ex-parte injunction must be vacated if it was obtained through false or misleading statements.
• The Court can partially retain the injunction if necessary in the interest of justice.

The Court found that:

• The plaintiff misrepresented the defendant’s trade mark by showing only two rhinos.
• The plaintiff selectively quoted the defendant’s reply, creating a false impression.
• The Court was misled into granting the ex-parte injunction.

However, the Court also found that:

• The defendants had themselves agreed to discontinue the “SH” trade mark in their reply.
• Therefore, the injunction on the “SH” trade mark was valid and should be retained.

---

Conclusion

• The Court vacated the injunction concerning the defendant’s six-rhino trade mark.
• The injunction concerning the trade mark “SH” was maintained.
• The goods bearing the six-rhino trade mark were ordered to be returned to the defendants.
• The goods bearing the “SH” trade mark remained seized pending further proceedings.

---

Implications

1. Stricter Scrutiny for Ex-Parte Injunctions
   • Courts may examine injunction applications more rigorously to prevent misuse.
   • Parties seeking urgent relief must fully and honestly disclose all facts.
2. Misrepresentation May Lead to Vacation of Injunctions
   • If a party selectively presents facts, the Court can vacate the relief granted.
   • Manipulation of evidence may result in adverse consequences.
3. Judicial Integrity Must Be Maintained
   • The integrity of court proceedings is paramount.
   • Any attempt to mislead the Court can invalidate orders.

This ruling sends a strong message against selective disclosure and reinforces the importance of fairness in litigation.

Also Read – Delhi High Court Imposes ₹10.31 Crore Deposit Condition for Leave to Defend in Loan Recovery Suit: “Defendant’s Defence Plausible but Improbable; Unconditional Leave Denied in Order XXXVII CPC Proceedings”