#ex-parte injunction

The Delhi High Court quashed the ex-parte interim injunction against Nugenesys after finding the plaintiff deliberately concealed a cease-and-desist notice, breaching the duty of candour in the Statement of Truth. The decision warns trademark litigants that material suppression will invalidate injunctive relief under the Commercial Courts Act.

Calcutta High Court clarifies that the proviso under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, allowing modification/vacation of injunctions, applies exclusively to orders passed after contest-not ex parte injunctions. The ruling sets aside a trial court order for misapplying the law, reinforcing procedural fairness in property disputes where status quo orders risk undue hardship.

Bombay High Court vacates an ex parte injunction after finding the plaintiff suppressed the defendant's prior use of the 'Apex' trademark since 1966. The ruling underscores the duty of full disclosure in IP injunction applications and reinforces the prior use defense under the Trademarks Act.

Punjab & Haryana High Court mandates trial courts to decide contempt petitions for ex parte injunction violations within six months, emphasizing prompt adjudication to prevent financial losses. The court also directed consideration of a Local Commissioner to ascertain possession status, reinforcing procedural safeguards for aggrieved parties.

Bombay HC set aside an ex-parte injunction in a trademark dispute after finding the plaintiff concealed material facts, including prior use of the mark and family ties with the defendant. The ruling reinforces that litigants seeking equitable relief must disclose all relevant facts to avoid injunctions being vacated under the Clean Hands Doctrine.