Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction, Holds 13-Year Delay Bars Trademark Relief by Acquiescence

Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction, Holds 13-Year Delay Bars Trademark Relief by Acquiescence

Introduction

The Bombay High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Minco India Private Limited and affirmed the refusal of interim injunction against Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the “MINCO” mark. The Court held that the plaintiff’s inaction for over 13 years despite full knowledge of the defendant’s use amounted to clear acquiescence, which constitutes a complete defence to an infringement action.

Factual Background

The dispute concerns the use of the “MINCO” mark in relation to scientific and measuring instruments, including gauges and flow meters falling in Class 09. Minco India Private Limited claimed exclusive rights based on use since 1982 and its registered mark “MINCO INDIA.”

The defendant, Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, is a sister concern promoted by the brother of the appellant’s director. Both entities trace their origins to the same family business established by the same patriarch. The record further revealed that the directors of both companies, being real brothers, had served on each other’s boards until 2015.

Crucially, in 2012, a No Objection Certificate had been issued by the plaintiff permitting the defendant to adopt the “MINCO” name, after which the defendant openly and continuously used the mark in its trading name.

Procedural Background

The appellant instituted a commercial suit in 2024 seeking interim injunction against the defendant’s use of “MINCO.” The Single Judge refused interim relief, finding that the plaintiff had acquiesced in the defendant’s use of the mark. The present appeal challenged that refusal before the Division Bench.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s 13-year inaction despite knowledge of the defendant’s use amounted to acquiescence.

2. Whether suppression of material facts, including the 2012 NOC and shared directorships, disentitled the plaintiff from equitable relief.

3. Whether the balance of convenience justified refusal of interim injunction.

Contentions of the Parties

The appellant contended that it was the registered proprietor of “MINCO INDIA” and that the defendant had dishonestly adopted an identical mark for similar goods, creating market confusion.

The respondent argued that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the defendant’s use since 2012, had itself issued an NOC for adoption of the name, and yet took no action for more than a decade. It was further submitted that the plaintiff had suppressed these material facts despite the statutory obligation to file a truthful Statement of Truth in a commercial suit.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s finding that the plaintiff had clear knowledge of the defendant’s use of “MINCO” since 2012. This was established through the NOC, the open use of the trade name, and the fact that the directors of the rival companies had served on each other’s boards until 2015.

The Court held that the plaintiff’s silence and failure to initiate any proceedings until 2024, despite open and continuous use by the defendant, constituted unequivocal acquiescence. Such prolonged inaction enabled the defendant to build substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark, thereby creating a complete defence to the infringement action.

The Bench also noted suppression of material facts, particularly the failure to fully disclose the 2012 NOC and the shared family and corporate background of the two entities. This omission further disentitled the plaintiff from discretionary equitable relief.

On balance of convenience, the Court held that it clearly favoured the defendant, which had carried on business openly under the “MINCO” name for over a decade and had established significant market reputation.

Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Single Judge’s refusal to grant interim injunction. The Court held that there was no legal infirmity in the refusal of relief, given the plaintiff’s acquiescence and suppression of material facts.

In this case the appellant was represented by Advocate Pranshul Dube with Asma Nadaf and Maithri Porwal. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocate Hiren Kamod with Anees Patel instructed by Mayuresh Borkar.