Non-disclosure of documents does not constitute suppression if it fails to overcome final findings by quasi-judicial authorities.

The Respondent (Anchor Consumer Products) filed a commercial suit against the Appellant (Patel) in May 2026, alleging that the Appellant’s mark ‘DYNAFRESH’ (used for air fresheners) was deceptively similar to the Respondent's registered mark ‘DYNA’ (used for soaps since 1999)

On May 26, 2026, a Single Judge granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Appellant

The Appellant challenged this order, primarily arguing that the Respondent suppressed material facts—specifically, 45 GST invoices showing the Appellant had used ‘DYNAFRESH’ since June 2021, whereas the Respondent allegedly portrayed the adoption as recent (May 2026)

Respondent disclosed that the Appellant's first trademark application for ‘DYNAFRESH’ had already been refused by the Registrar in July 2024 on grounds of deceptive similarity and lack of proven user, a finding the Appellant did not challenge

The court applied Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC and Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding appeals against interim orders

It relied on the principle of material disclosure under Order VI Rule 2 of the CPC, which obligates a plaintiff to disclose all material facts when seeking ex-parte relief

The court applied the doctrine of estoppel, holding that findings by a quasi-judicial authority (the Registrar of Trademarks) that have attained finality are binding on the parties and preclude contradictory claims regarding "bona fide adoption" or "prior use"

The Court found that the non-disclosure of the GST invoices was not a "material suppression" because the existence of those invoices could not override the final findings of the Registrar of Trademarks in the order dated 29.07.2024

The Registrar had specifically found the marks to be deceptively similar and concluded that the Appellant’s user claim was unproven and their adoption not bona fide

The Court reasoned that since the Appellant failed to challenge the Registrar's order, they were estopped from re-agitating the user claim via a second, undisclosed application

The Court further noted that the Respondent had provided Amazon listings showing the Appellant's products since 2021, meaning the Single Judge was aware of the prior use and still found the balance of convenience favoured the Respondent due to the deceptive similarity and the Respondent's "immense reputation"

On the second issue, the Court held the adoption was not bona fide

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge’s order, finding that the ‘DYNAFRESH’ mark was deceptively similar to ‘DYNA’ and likely to cause confusion. The appeal was dismissed, and the Appellant's application for recall (I.A. 16849/2026) in the main suit was dismissed as withdrawn