Suppression of prior registration and absence of urgency warrants vacating ex-parte ad-interim injunction order.

The Appellant challenged an order dated 14.03.2026 passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), which granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Appellant from using the trademark "TT".

The Respondents (Plaintiffs) had filed the suit alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

The Appellant contended that the Respondents suppressed material facts, specifically that the Appellant is the prior adopter (since 1895) and registered proprietor (since 1950) of the "TT" mark for Asafoetida.

It was further alleged that the Respondents concealed a 2017 legal notice and the Appellant's reply thereto.

Although the suit was filed in December 2025, it was not listed until March 2026, yet the Trial Court granted ex-parte relief without notice to the Appellant.

1. Whether the ex-parte ad-interim injunction was liable to be set aside due to the non-disclosure of material facts regarding the Appellant’s prior use and registrations.

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in granting ex-parte relief without notice in a dispute between two registered proprietors.

3. Whether the urgency of the matter justified an ex-parte order given the three-month delay between the filing and the first hearing of the suit.

The Court applied the principles governing the grant of temporary injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which require a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

It relied on the equitable principle that a party seeking ex-parte relief must come to the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts.

Furthermore, the court noted the statutory position under the Trade Marks Act that an infringement action is generally not maintainable between two registered proprietors.

The High Court observed that the material facts regarding the Appellant's long-standing use and registrations were not averred in the plaint, which likely misled the Trial Court.

The Court reasoned that in a trademark dispute where both parties claim registered rights, a "considered decision" requires the presence of both parties.

It found that the three-month gap between the filing of the suit and its listing negated the claim of extreme urgency that would justify bypassing the requirement of notice to the defendant.

The Court concluded that the absence of notice caused significant prejudice to the Appellant, as the injunction effectively resulted in the closure of its business.

Consequently, the Court determined that the matter required a fresh hearing after the filing of proper replies.

The Court directed the District Judge to hear the parties on 20.04.2026 and pass an order by 23.04.2026.

Pending this final determination, the Court modified the interim injunction to ensure it does not apply to "Asafoetida" and "Appalam" products.

The Appellant was permitted to sell its existing stock of these products provided they maintain proper accounts.

The appeal was disposed of accordingly.