Bombay High Court Lets ‘MINCO’ Use Continue, Faults Plaintiff for Delay and Consent

Bombay High Court Lets ‘MINCO’ Use Continue, Faults Plaintiff for Delay and Consent

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of the mark “MINCO.” The Court held that long-standing acquiescence, prior consent, and lack of candour disentitled the plaintiff from injunctive protection.

Factual Background

The dispute concerns two companies engaged in the manufacture of industrial instruments, including pressure and temperature measuring equipment. Minco India Private Limited claimed that it has used the mark “MINCO INDIA” since 1982 and obtained trademark registration in 2023, asserting user rights dating back to that year.

Minco India alleged that it became aware only in February 2024 that Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited was manufacturing and supplying similar products using “MINCO”, leading to market confusion and infringement of its registered mark.

Procedural Background

Minco India filed a commercial suit before the Bombay High Court seeking interim relief to restrain Minco India Flow Elements from using “MINCO” as part of its trade name. The interim application came up before Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, who examined the plea in light of the parties’ conduct and historical relationship.

Issues

1. Whether Minco India had made out a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off.

2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to equitable interim relief, given allegations of suppression and acquiescence.

3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured restraining long-standing use of the trade name “MINCO.”

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: Minco India argued that it is the prior adopter of the mark and that Minco India Flow’s use of “MINCO” for similar products infringed its registered trademark and caused confusion. It asserted that it discovered the defendant’s use only in 2024 and sought urgent injunctive relief.

Defendant: Minco India Flow disputed this narrative, contending that it has openly used “MINCO” since 2012, following a name change from Tivim Instruments Company Private Limited. It produced board resolutions and official records showing that the change was made transparently and with the no-objection of Minco India itself.

The defendant also highlighted the close familial and corporate links between the parties, including shared directors and group affiliation, to demonstrate that Minco India had long-standing knowledge of the use of “MINCO.”

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Deshmukh found the plaintiff’s claim of discovering the defendant’s use only in 2024 to be prima facie false. The Court noted that both companies were set up by members of the same family, operated within the same business group, and shared directors for several years. Significantly, a director of Minco India continued on the board of Minco India Flow even after the name change in 2012.

The Court held that this history clearly showed knowledge, acquiescence, and even consent. It observed that no action had been initiated by Minco India despite being aware of the defendant’s name change since at least 2015, undermining its plea for urgent relief. The suppression of material facts relating to consent, shared management, and prolonged silence disentitled the plaintiff from invoking equity. On passing off, the Court was unconvinced that confusion was likely. It noted that the products involved are specialised, custom-made industrial instruments, typically purchased by experienced industrial buyers, making deception unlikely at the interim stage.

Balancing equities, the Court found that Minco India Flow had openly used “MINCO” for over a decade and built a substantial business around it. Restraining such use at this stage would cause disproportionate prejudice.

Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the interim application, holding that Minco India had failed to establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, or equitable entitlement to relief. The Court refused to restrain Minco India Flow Elements from continuing to use “MINCO” as part of its trade name, emphasising that equity does not assist parties who approach the Court with unclean hands or after prolonged acquiescence.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Pranshul Dube along with Ms. Maithri Porwal, Ms. Tarika Jaitley and Ms. Asma Nadaf, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Hiren Kamod alongwith Mr. Anees Patel and Mr. Amritraj Roychowdhary, Advocates.