ELDER NEUTRACITCALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. Elder Prroject Limited
Vacation of Ex-Parte Injunction due to Gross Suppression of Material Facts and False Claims of Trademark Ownership and Prior Use.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:6099
Decision Date: 09-03-2026
List of Laws
The Trade Marks Act, 1999; The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; The Copyright Act, 1957; Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate; Equity and Common Law Principles of Injunction
- Facts: The Plaintiff, Elder Prroject Limited, filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against the Defendant, Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited, regarding the mark "ELDER". The Plaintiff claimed to be the prior user and registered proprietor of a device mark featuring "ELDER" in a stylized font with a three-leaf logo. They secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 26 September 2025 by alleging they coined the mark in 1992 and only recently discovered the Defendant’s use. The Defendant moved to vacate the injunction, revealing that the original proprietor of the "ELDER" mark was a company called Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (EPL), now in liquidation. The Defendant further exposed that the Plaintiff’s director (son of EPL's founder) and the Defendant’s director (daughter of EPL's founder) were siblings, and that the Plaintiff had suppressed four adverse orders from the Delhi High Court which had previously labeled the Plaintiff as an infringer of EPL's marks.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the Bombay High Court via two interim applications: one by the Plaintiff seeking to make the temporary injunction absolute, and another by the Defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to vacate the ex-parte ad-interim injunction on grounds of gross suppression of material facts.
- Issue: Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief of an injunction when they secured an ex-parte order by suppressing material facts, including prior adverse judicial findings and their status as a contract manufacturer rather than the originator of the mark.
- Holding: No. The Court vacated the ex-parte injunction, dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for temporary injunction, and imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the Plaintiff for the misuse of the judicial process.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that an injunction is an equitable relief requiring the applicant to approach the court with "clean hands". The Plaintiff committed gross suppression by failing to disclose: (i) EPL's prior ownership of the "ELDER" mark; (ii) the familial relationship between the directors; (iii) the Delhi High Court orders rejecting the Plaintiff’s claims of ownership; and (iv) proceedings by the Official Liquidator. The Court found the Plaintiff's claim of "coining" the mark was false, as they were merely a contract manufacturer for EPL until 2016. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the stylized device mark from the word mark "ELDER" during oral arguments was an "afterthought" and contradicted their own pleadings. The Court held that a litigant who suppresses facts that could influence the court's decision-making process is disentitled to discretionary relief.
🔒 For Members Only