Clean Hands Rule Enforced: Bombay High Court Vacates ‘ELDER’ Trademark Injunction Over Suppression of Key Facts

Clean Hands Rule Enforced: Bombay High Court Vacates ‘ELDER’ Trademark Injunction Over Suppression of Key Fact

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has set aside an ex-parte ad-interim injunction earlier granted in a trademark infringement suit filed by Elder Projects Ltd. against Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by suppressing material facts and therefore was not entitled to equitable relief.

Factual Background

Elder Projects Ltd. instituted a trademark infringement and passing-off suit alleging violation of its registered device mark containing the word “ELDER.” The company claimed that it had been using the mark since 1992-93 and that the mark was registered on June 12, 2024.

According to the plaintiff, it became aware in May 2025 that Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was marketing pharmaceutical products using a similar mark. A cease-and-desist notice was issued, following which the plaintiff approached the High Court seeking interim protection.

On September 26, 2025, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “ELDER” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products.

Procedural Background

Following the grant of the ex-parte injunction, Elder Nutraceuticals filed an application seeking vacation of the interim order. The defendant contended that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction without disclosing crucial material facts that would have influenced the Court’s decision. The High Court examined the circumstances in which the injunction had been granted and assessed whether the plaintiff had approached the Court with clean hands.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

2. Whether such suppression disentitled the plaintiff from equitable relief in the form of interim injunction.

3. Whether the injunction restraining use of the mark “ELDER” ought to be vacated.

Contentions of the Parties

Elder Projects Ltd. contended that it was the proprietor of the registered trademark containing the word “ELDER” and that the defendant’s use of a similar mark amounted to infringement and passing off. It asserted long-standing use of the mark and sought restraint against the defendant’s use of the allegedly infringing mark.

Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd., on the other hand, argued that the plaintiff had obtained the injunction by suppressing material facts. The defendant pointed out that the trademark “ELDER” had previously been registered and used by Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd., incorporated in 1983, which was the original proprietor of the mark.

The defendant further contended that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the relationship between the directors of the two companies and their prior association with Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. It also highlighted earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court where the plaintiff’s claims relating to the “ELDER” mark had been rejected.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the plaintiff had approached the Court for an ex-parte injunction without giving notice to the defendant while suppressing crucial material facts. It held that such omissions had a direct bearing on the plaintiff’s entitlement to interim relief. The Court noted that the existence of prior use and registration of the mark by Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd., as well as the relationship between the directors and their previous association with that entity, were material facts that ought to have been disclosed. It further recorded that earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court concerning claims over the “ELDER” mark had not been brought to the Court’s attention when the injunction was sought.

Justice Marne held that these omissions concerned material particulars that could have influenced the Court’s decision to grant interim protection. The Court emphasised that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands. In view of the suppression of material facts, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to continuation of the ex-parte injunction.

Decision

The Bombay High Court vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on September 26, 2025 restraining Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark “ELDER.” The Court also directed Elder Projects Ltd. to pay costs of ₹1 lakh to Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Karl Tamboly, Bhupesh Dhumatkar, Rohit Pandey, Bhavin Shah, Dinesh Dubey, Advocates. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Hiren Kamod, Nihit Nagpal, Nisha Kaba, Abhijit Singh, Anees Patel, Areen Shaikh, Advocates.