The Delhi High Court has overturned an ex-parte interim injunction granted in a trademark dispute, holding that the plaintiff’s wilful suppression of a cease-and-desist notice and trademark office objections vitiated the order and amounted to a breach of the duty of candour owed to the Court.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and its promoter Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar, launched nutraceutical products under the mark “RewireX” in March 2026. The respondent, Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., owned the earlier registered mark “NUREWIRE” (Trademark No. 4525594, Class 5, registered 09 June 2020) and alleged infringement.
Key Facts
- 09 Oct 2019: Mr. Mandlekar joined Celagenex as founding director, vice-president and CFO, holding 99 % of the shareholding.
- 06 Mar 2025: Nugenesys filed trademark application No. 6892520 for “RewireX” (Class 5).
- 29 Oct 2025: Celagenex issued a cease-and-desist notice to Nugenesys demanding withdrawal of the application and an undertaking to cease use.
- 27 Jan 2026: Celagenex filed formal objections to the trademark application before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
- 12 Dec 2024: Nugenesys was incorporated (initially as Taibachem Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.).
- 30 Dec 2025: Company renamed Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
- Mar 2026: Nugenesys began commercial launch of products bearing “RewireX”.
- May 2026: Celagenex learned of the market use and filed the underlying suit.
- 20 May 2026: Single Judge granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, without recording reasons or giving notice to the appellants.
Procedural History
- 20 May 2026: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction order passed (impugned order).
- 28 Jul 2026: Appeal filed under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.
- 20 Aug 2026: Division Bench (Justices V. Kameswar Rao & Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora) delivered the judgment, vacating the injunction and ordering costs.
Parties' Positions
- Appellants: Contended that the injunction was granted without notice, that the respondent had known of the mark since October 2025, and that the products were distinct in active pharmaceutical ingredients, negating likelihood of confusion.
- Respondent: Asserted that the notice and objections were immaterial oversights, that it only became aware of actual use in May 2026, and that the injunction was necessary to prevent consumer confusion.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought vacatur of the ex-parte injunction, dismissal of the interim application, and release of seized products. The respondent sought confirmation of the injunction and damages.
The Legal Issue
Whether the wilful suppression of a cease-and-desist notice dated 29 Oct 2025 and the trademark objections dated 27 Jan 2026, by the plaintiff in the underlying commercial suit, vitiates the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and warrants its vacatur.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellants
- The plaintiff breached the duty of candour under the Statement of Truth (Paragraph 4-5 CPC) by omitting material facts.
- Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC mandates notice to the opposite party before an injunction, absent a compelling reason, which was not recorded.
- Pre-mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, was improperly waived.
- The products differ in formulation, reducing likelihood of confusion.
For the Respondent
- The omission of the notice and objections was an inadvertent oversight, not material to the cause of action.
- The injunction was justified on the basis of potential consumer confusion and public interest.
- The respondent relied on precedent that a plaintiff’s non-disclosure does not automatically invalidate an interim order.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first examined the statutory framework governing ex-parte injunctions. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC requires that a court record reasons when dispensing with notice, and the plaintiff must disclose all material facts under the Statement of Truth provisions (Paragraph 4-5 CPC). The Court noted that the plaintiff’s failure to disclose the October 2025 notice and January 2026 objections amounted to a material suppression that misled the Single Judge about the true date of knowledge.
"The impugned order dated 20.05.2026 hereby stands vacated."
The Court relied on the English authority R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917 KB 486) and its Indian progeny, emphasizing that a party seeking ex-parte relief must act with uberrima fides; any concealment of material facts invites dismissal of the relief. The judgment also cited Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd. and Wander Ltd. v. Antox India P. Ltd. to underscore that prior commencement of business by the defendant is a relevant factor that should have prompted the court to grant a short-notice hearing rather than an ex-parte order.
The Court observed that the respondent’s knowledge of the trademark application dated 06 Mar 2025, evidenced by the October 2025 notice, pre-dated the alleged cause of action in May 2026. By suppressing this fact, the plaintiff created a false sense of urgency, influencing the Single Judge’s discretion to grant an exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent’s argument that the products were identical, noting the appellants’ submission that the active pharmaceutical ingredients differed, a point the Single Judge had already recorded as a lack of deceptive similarity in trade dress.
In light of the material suppression, the Court held that the ex-parte injunction could not stand. The inherent power of the court to dismiss applications obtained by deception, as articulated in R v. Kensington, was exercised. The Court also ordered costs against the respondent for the wilful non-disclosure.
The Verdict
The appeal is allowed. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction dated 20 May 2026 is vacated. The interim application is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay costs of Rs 2,00,000, to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks. The seized products are released from Superdari, and the appellants may dispose of them at liberty.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Duty of Full Disclosure Is Non-Negotiable
- Parties filing for injunction must disclose every material fact, including prior notices and objections, under the Statement of Truth.
- Failure to do so invites vacatur of any interim relief and may attract cost penalties.
Ex-parte Injunctions Require Strict Justification
- Courts will scrutinise the reasons recorded under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC; absence of recorded reasons is fatal.
- When the defendant has already commenced business, a short-notice hearing is preferred over an ex-parte order.
Pre-mediation Cannot Be Bypassed By Concealment
-
Under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, parties must seek mediation before instituting suit unless a valid exemption is shown.
-
Concealing prior communications to obtain an exemption will be treated as contempt of procedural duty.
-
Practitioners should audit all correspondence before filing pleadings.
-
Include explicit references to any cease-and-desist notices or trademark office objections in the plaint.
-
Prepare a concise reasoned affidavit when seeking ex-parte relief, citing statutory authority.
