The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in an appeal against an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted by a learned Single Judge, vacated the injunction in a trademark dispute involving NUREWIRE and RewireX, used for nutraceutical products. The Bench found that the Plaintiff had wilfully suppressed material facts concerning its prior knowledge of the Defendants’ adoption of the impugned mark, thereby creating a false sense of urgency to secure interim relief without notice.

Emphasising the duty of full and frank disclosure, particularly in commercial suits seeking ex-parte relief, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, imposed costs of ₹2 lakh and directed the release of the seized products.

Background

The Plaintiff, Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., is the registered proprietor of NUREWIRE in Class 5 since June 2020. Defendant No. 1, Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., adopted RewireX for competing nutraceutical products and applied for its registration in March 2025. The products were launched in March 2026.

Defendant No. 2, Mr. Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar, was a founding director, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Plaintiff and held 99% of its founding shareholding. He resigned in October 2024, shortly before Defendant No. 1 was incorporated.

Significantly, the Plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 29 October 2025, calling upon the Defendants to withdraw their trademark application and cease the impugned use. It also filed objections to the application before the Trademarks Registry in January 2026.

However, when the Plaintiff subsequently instituted the suit, it asserted that it had first become aware of the impugned mark in May 2026. The earlier notice and objections were not expressly disclosed in the plaint, synopsis or list of dates. The learned Single Judge nevertheless granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, observing that the circumstances surrounding the adoption of RewireX did not inspire confidence.

Aggrieved, the Defendants appealed to the Division Bench.

Appellants’ submissions

1. The Appellants contended that the injunction should not have been granted without notice or an opportunity of hearing. The Plaintiff had known of their adoption of RewireX since October 2025, and its assertion of first knowledge in May 2026 had created a false sense of urgency.
2. They also challenged the procedural validity of the order, alleging that adequate reasons for granting ex-parte relief had not been recorded and that the returnable date exceeded the prescribed 30-day period.
3. On merits, the Appellants argued that the competing products contained different active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and were distinguishable. They further submitted that the learned Single Judge had found the rival trade dresses not deceptively similar.
4. The Appellants disputed the authenticity of the alleged appointment letter relied upon by the Plaintiff, asserting that Defendant No. 2’s signatures had been forged and that he had never been employed by the Plaintiff. They also challenged his description as an erstwhile distributor. Further, circulation of the injunction order among retailers and distributors had allegedly caused reputational and commercial harm.

Respondent’s submissions

1. The Plaintiff maintained that the omission to disclose the notice dated 29 October 2025 and the subsequent objections was an inadvertent oversight. It argued that the notice followed discovery of the Defendants’ trademark application and did not establish knowledge of actual commercial use.
2. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants launched their products only in March 2026, and it became aware of such use in May 2026, following which it promptly approached the Court.
3. The Plaintiff asserted that RewireX infringed its registered NUREWIRE mark, particularly because the products and trade channels were identical or closely related, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion. It further indicated that discontinuation of RewireX would resolve the dispute.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

• Suppression of material facts

The principal issue before the Division Bench was the consequence of the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose its earlier notice and objections when seeking ex-parte relief.

The Court noted that the notice dated 29 October 2025 and the objections filed in January 2026 established the Plaintiff’s knowledge of the Defendants’ adoption of RewireX well before May 2026. It rejected the explanation that the omission was inadvertent or that these documents were immaterial.

As a commercial suit, the Plaintiff was required to disclose all material facts and documents, including under the Statement of Truth. Although copies of the notice and objections were included among the filed documents, they were not properly identified in the index or expressly highlighted in the pleadings, synopsis or list of dates. They were effectively “tucked away” in the record.

The Bench held that the Plaintiff had wilfully suppressed material facts and misled the Court regarding the date of its knowledge of the impugned mark.

• False urgency and invalidity of ex-parte relief

The Court found that the non-disclosure materially affected the grant of the injunction. By portraying May 2026 as the date of first knowledge, the Plaintiff created a false sense of urgency and influenced the Court to grant relief without notice.

Had the earlier notice and objections been disclosed, the learned Single Judge might have directed short notice to the Appellants instead. The Plaintiff’s exemption from advance service of the paper-book further undermined an important procedural safeguard.

While recognising that ex-parte injunctions and the appointment of Local Commissioners may be justified in appropriate cases involving counterfeiting or passing off, the Bench emphasised that such discretion must be exercised on the basis of full and frank disclosure.

The material non-disclosure, coupled with the failure to record adequate reasons for dispensing with notice, rendered the impugned order unsustainable.

1. Pre-institution mediation

The Bench also considered the Plaintiff’s prior knowledge concerning pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes not contemplating urgent interim relief.

The Court held that the earlier notice and objections were material to the Plaintiff’s request for exemption from mediation. Given the chronology and the parties’ prior business relationship, the Plaintiff should have addressed the mediation requirement rather than seeking exemption on the basis of urgency without disclosing the earlier steps.

The exemption had thus been obtained through suppression of material facts.

• Pattern of non-disclosure and responsibility under the Statement of Truth

The Division Bench took note of two earlier suits involving the same filing counsel in which Courts had recorded concerns regarding suppression or non-disclosure. In one matter, costs of ₹10 lakh had been imposed, although subsequently set aside by consent following settlement. Another involved the suppression of a cease-and-desist notice.

The Bench also criticised the practice of filing material documents under a generic “COLLY” heading without expressly identifying their significance. Considering the three suits collectively, it found a recurring pattern of non-disclosure concerning the true date on which the cause of action arose.

The Court rejected the explanation of inadvertence, finding that the circumstances indicated deliberate and wilful suppression intended to secure an ex-parte order. It emphasised that responsibility for the Statement of Truth rested with the litigant as well as counsel. The Plaintiff, having signed the Statement of Truth, was equally accountable for the omissions.

The decision reinforces that a party seeking equitable relief, particularly without notice to its opponent, must approach the Court with complete candour and utmost good faith.

• No overriding public-interest justification

The Court found no overriding public-interest justification for continuing the injunction. The Appellants’ products were manufactured under an FSSAI licence, sales were subject to GST regulation, and no prima facie public-health risk had been demonstrated. The dispute was essentially commercial.

In these circumstances, the injunction could not be sustained in the face of the Plaintiff’s material non-disclosure.

Decision

The Division Bench vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction, dismissed the interim injunction application, directed payment of ₹2 lakh in costs to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, and ordered the release of the seized products, permitting the Appellants to dispose of them.

Key Takeaways

1. Material correspondence and prior proceedings must be expressly disclosed when seeking urgent relief; merely including documents among annexures may not suffice.
2. The chronology of knowledge is critical to assessing urgency and compliance with pre-institution mediation requirements.
3. The duty of candour extends to the litigant who verifies the pleadings through the Statement of Truth.