In recent litigation concerning intellectual property rights, particularly trademark infringement and passing off, the issue of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff has emerged as a critical point of contention. This article delves into the legal implications of such suppression under trademark law and explores the consequential vacation of an ex-parte injunction order.

Background of the Case:
The current legal dispute centers on the plaintiff's assertion of copyright in the ATYATI Device Mark and its registered trademarks. Allegedly, the defendants infringed upon these rights with an impugned artistic work or logo. Seeking immediate protection, the plaintiff secured an ex-parte ad-interim injunction on 19th March 2024, citing urgency in safeguarding its intellectual property.

Allegations of Suppression and Misstatements:
In response, the defendants filed an Affidavit in Reply dated 27th April 2024, contesting the continuation of the ex-parte injunction. They contended that the injunction had been improperly obtained by the plaintiff through suppression, misstatements, and false representations in their pleadings.

Legal Principles Regarding Injunctions:
Under Indian law, specifically Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and established judicial precedents, the grant of ex-parte injunctions necessitates the utmost good faith from the applicant. "A plaintiff seeking such relief must disclose all material facts, including potential defenses or arguments likely to be raised by the defendants. Failure to provide full disclosure can lead to the injunction being vacated."

Analysis of the Court's Findings:
The court critically examined the plaintiff's submissions and identified a significant inconsistency. Paragraph 19 of the plaint indicated that the plaintiff first became aware of the defendant's impugned logo in October 2023. However, a Cease and Desist Notice issued by the plaintiff on 30th October 2023 contradicted this assertion by alleging that the defendants had been using the impugned logo since 2022.

Impact of Suppression on Judicial Proceedings:
"This discrepancy led the court to conclude that the plaintiff's failure to disclose the information contained in the Cease and Desist Notice, particularly the fact that the defendants had been using the impugned logo since 2022, constituted suppression of material facts. Such suppression undermines the foundation of the ex-parte injunction, as the urgency claimed by the plaintiff was based on incomplete information."

Conclusion:
In light of the plaintiff's suppression of material facts concerning the timeline of the defendant's activities, the court decided that the ex-parte injunction granted on 19th March 2024 should not be continued. This decision underscores the paramount importance of full and accurate disclosure in applications for injunctions without notice. Such transparency ensures fairness and promotes integrity in judicial proceedings, particularly in disputes involving intellectual property rights.

Implications for Future Cases:
Legal practitioners and parties involved in intellectual property disputes should take note of this case as it reinforces the obligation to disclose all pertinent information when seeking injunctive relief. Courts will scrutinize applications for ex-parte injunctions to ensure that they are not obtained through suppression or misrepresentation, thereby upholding the principles of equity and justice in trademark litigation.

Case Citation: Atyati Technologies Private Limited Vs Cognizant Technologies Solution: 13.06.2024: Commercial IP Suit No.7897 of 2024:2024:BHC:OS-8665:Bombay High Court: Firsosh P. Pooniwalia. H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539