The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the More Than Water Private Limited v. Nesco passing off dispute involving “WATERBOX”, “MORE THAN WATERBOX” and “MY WATER BOX”, stressed that parties seeking interim equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands, full disclosure and credible evidence.

The Court declined interim relief to the plaintiff, finding that it had failed to establish prima facie goodwill and reputation and had relied on prima facie unreliable invoices. At the same time, the defendant was also criticised for relying on prima facie fabricated photographs and invoices before the Trademarks Registry to support its claimed prior use.

The Division Bench further held that “WATERBOX” was prima facie descriptive and non-distinctive. Although the rival marks appeared prima facie similar, the questions of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion were left open for trial.

Background of the Dispute

More Than Water Private Limited manufactures and sells packaged drinking water in paper-based tetra packs under the mark “MORE THAN WATERBOX, .” Its predecessor, M/s Meera Enterprises, allegedly coined and adopted “WATERBOX” and “WATERBOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE” in 2018, with the associated IP rights later assigned to the plaintiff upon its incorporation in 2022.

In January 2026, the plaintiff discovered that Nesco had obtained registration for the device mark “MY WATER BOX” in Class 32, claiming use since October 2020. The plaintiff alleged that Nesco’s coloured mark was deceptively similar to its marks, particularly due to the shared expression “WATER BOX,” a similar wave device, and comparable presentation on tetra packs.

Alleging that the defendant’s adoption and use were likely to cause confusion and misrepresentation of an association with the plaintiff’s business, the plaintiff instituted a passing off action and sought an interim injunction restraining use of the impugned mark.

Single Judge Refuses Absolute Interim Injunction

The Single Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of goodwill and reputation, finding its evidence of prior use and sales unreliable and insufficient to show continuous commercial use or substantial market presence. The Court also noted inconsistencies between the plaintiff’s trademark filings and its claimed use and found that the alleged use of the mark on tetra-packaged drinking water during 2018–2020 appeared prima facie inconsistent with applicable BIS regulations.

As goodwill was not established, the Court did not examine misrepresentation and damage in detail. However, instead of granting an absolute injunction, it imposed a limited territorial restraint, permitting the plaintiff to sell only in Gujarat and the defendant only in Maharashtra. Both parties challenged aspects of this order before the Division Bench.

Plaintiff’s Submissions Before the Division Bench

The plaintiff argued that the Single Judge erred in refusing a nationwide injunction and restricting its sales to Gujarat, contending that it was entitled to sell across India, including through e-commerce platforms, and had applied for a Central FSSAI licence. It also submitted that the territorial restraint was imposed suo motu, despite the defendant not seeking such relief.

On goodwill, the plaintiff argued that the Court had applied an unduly high threshold, as prior adoption and use could suffice in a passing off action without proof of extensive reputation. It alleged that Nesco had falsely claimed use since October 2020 and relied on fabricated photographs and unreliable invoices, asserting that genuine commercial use began only in 2025, supported by a 2025 invoice, Instagram launch post and website activity.

The plaintiff further contended that “WATERBOX” was the dominant element of both marks and that “MORE THAN WATERBOX” and “MY WATER BOX” were deceptively similar. It also alleged copying of its trade dress, tetra pack presentation and wave device. Given that packaged drinking water is a mass-market, low-involvement product, these similarities, it argued, created a substantial likelihood of consumer confusion.

Defendant’s Defence

Nesco submitted that its defence was based on its actual commercial use commencing in 2025, rather than its trademark registration or any alleged use before that period. It supported the finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish goodwill, alleging that the plaintiff’s use was sporadic and its purported 2020 invoices were fabricated.

The defendant also questioned the legality of the plaintiff’s pre-2020 use of tetra-packaged water in light of applicable FSSAI, GST and other regulatory requirements. It contended that the plaintiff’s State FSSAI licence did not permit pan-India sales and that its application for a Central licence had been rejected, which the plaintiff allegedly failed to disclose to the Court.

Nesco, in contrast, claimed to have obtained a Central FSSAI licence in July 2025 and commenced commercial sales in October 2025. It therefore argued that, in the absence of established prior goodwill, the plaintiff could not sustain a passing off claim.

Division Bench Finds Plaintiff Had Approached the Court with Unclean Hands

The Division Bench upheld the denial of interim injunction, holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish credible prior use of “WATERBOX.” The invoices relied upon since 2020 contained an incorrect HSN code that was not applicable to water, and the plaintiff could neither satisfactorily explain the discrepancy nor produce supporting GST records. In the absence of contemporaneous corroboration, the invoices appeared prima facie manipulated and could not establish prior use.

The Court also noted the plaintiff’s failure to disclose that its Central FSSAI licence application had been rejected, despite relying on the pending application to claim an ability to expand sales beyond Gujarat.

The Division Bench held that reliance on prima facie manipulated invoices, coupled with suppression of the FSSAI rejection, showed that the plaintiff had approached the Court with unclean hands. Since interim injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy, the plaintiff’s conduct disentitled it to such relief.

Defendant Also Comes Under Strong Judicial Criticism

The Division Bench held that Nesco’s conduct required scrutiny independently of the plaintiff’s failure to establish its case. The Court found that Nesco had relied on prima facie fabricated photographs and unreliable invoices before the Trademarks Registry to claim use of “MY WATER BOX” since 2020. The invoices were suspect as they recorded product quantities without prices, contrary to ordinary commercial practice. Although Nesco later stated that it would not rely on its registration or alleged prior use, the Court criticised the manner in which the registration appeared to have been obtained, observing that it was unfortunate that registration had been secured on the basis of documents that appeared prima facie fabricated.

Court Condemns Both Parties for Fabricated Documents

The Division Bench strongly condemned both parties’ reliance on prima facie fabricated invoices and false documents, warning that such conduct undermines the administration of justice and reflects a serious lack of corporate ethics. The Court stressed that invoices are important fiscal records underlying GST and income-tax compliance, making their manipulation particularly serious. It directed that the disputed invoices be subjected to strict proof at trial and cautioned that perjury proceedings could follow if they are found to be fabricated.

“WATERBOX” Found Prima Facie Descriptive

The Division Bench held that the Plaintiff failed to establish proprietary rights in “WATERBOX”, which was prima facie considered descriptive and non-distinctive, conveying the idea of “water in a box.” Although the competing marks “MORE THAN WATERBOX” and “MY WATER BOX” appeared prima facie similar due to the common expression “WATERBOX” and wave device, similarity alone was insufficient for an interim injunction. The Plaintiff’s lack of goodwill, reliance on unreliable evidence, and failure to make complete disclosure further weakened its case. The issues of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion were left open for trial.

Territorial Injunction Vacated

The Division Bench vacated the territorial injunction, permitting both parties to sell their respective products beyond the earlier territorial restrictions, subject to regulatory compliance. The Plaintiff was specifically directed to comply with its FSSAI licence, while the Defendant’s statement regarding sales outside Maharashtra was made binding for determining territorial jurisdiction at trial.

The Court also restrained the Defendant from asserting its trademark registration against third parties during the suit, given prima facie concerns regarding the documents used to obtain the registration. If the documents are proved genuine, the registration may be relied upon; if fabricated, appropriate consequences, including perjury proceedings, may follow. The Court further clarified that the Defendant’s continued use of the mark during the proceedings would not create any equitable rights in its favour.

Conclusion

The decision reiterates that interim injunctions are discretionary and equitable remedies requiring credible evidence and full disclosure. Despite prima facie similarity between the marks, the Plaintiff failed to establish goodwill and relied on questionable documents. The Court also criticised the Defendant’s unreliable records, highlighting that commercial credibility, evidentiary integrity and the conduct of both parties are crucial in trademark litigation.

Key Takeaways

1. Clean hands are essential: Suppression of material facts or regulatory developments can defeat a claim for interim equitable relief.
2. Prior use requires credible evidence: Trademark use must be supported by genuine, contemporaneous and verifiable commercial records.
3. Defendants are equally accountable: Questionable evidence placed before the Trademarks Registry remains subject to judicial scrutiny.
4. Descriptive elements have limited protection: Prima facie descriptive and non-distinctive common elements may not support proprietary rights.
5. Similarity alone is insufficient: Prima facie similarity does not automatically warrant an injunction; goodwill, conduct and evidentiary credibility also matter.
6. Fabricated records carry serious consequences: False invoices and documents may lead to perjury proceedings and consequences for responsible officers.