Concealment Trumps Infringement: Delhi HC Denies Quantum Injunction Against LG Despite Prima Facie Case

New Delhi – In a significant judgment that reinforces the primacy of the "clean hands" doctrine in equitable remedies, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., refusing to grant an interim injunction against LG Electronics India. The Division Bench, comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, held that even a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement is insufficient to secure interim relief if the plaintiff has deliberately concealed material facts from the court.

The ruling, delivered on November 4, 2025, in Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. , provides a stark reminder to litigants that the path to obtaining an injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure is paved with the duty of full and frank disclosure. The Court found that Quantum Hi-Tech’s failure to be transparent about the flawed registration of its "QUANTUM" word mark was fatal to its plea for interlocutory protection, effectively allowing a potential chance for relief to "go abegging."

Background: A Tug-of-War Over 'QUANTUM'

The dispute originated when Quantum Hi-Tech, a company dealing in electronic goods since 1997, filed a suit in the Shahdara Commercial Court. It sought to restrain LG Electronics from using the marks “QUANTUM” and “QUANTUM DISPLAY” for its televisions and display panels, alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Quantum claimed ownership of both a registered device mark and a word mark for "QUANTUM" in Class 9.

Initially, in October 2021, the Commercial Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in Quantum’s favor. However, this relief was short-lived. By December 2021, upon hearing LG, the court vacated the injunction, citing Quantum's suppression of crucial information regarding its trademark applications. Aggrieved, Quantum appealed to the Delhi High Court, leading to the present judgment.

The Unraveling of a Word Mark: A Case of Material Concealment

The High Court’s decision hinged on what it termed "serious and material concealment" by Quantum regarding the very basis of its infringement claim—the registration of the "QUANTUM" word mark. The Bench meticulously deconstructed Quantum's application history and found significant discrepancies.

The Court noted that Quantum's application (No. 1291193) was originally for a composite device mark, not a standalone word mark. Despite this, a registration certificate was somehow issued for the word mark. Critically, Quantum had previously filed an affidavit in separate proceedings admitting that the application was for the composite mark. The High Court observed that this crucial admission was suppressed in the present suit.

“By suppressing the above affidavit, the appellant has concealed its own admission… that Application No. 1291193 was for the composite mark, and not for the QUANTUM word mark,” the Bench stated.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out the absence of a mandatory Form TM-16, which is required to amend a trademark application from a device mark to a word mark. Despite being directed in earlier proceedings to produce this form, Quantum failed to do so. This led the Court to conclude that the initial application was never validly amended, rendering the entire registration of the "QUANTUM" word mark improper.

This deliberate non-disclosure formed the bedrock of the Court’s refusal to grant relief. Invoking established Supreme Court precedents like S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , the Bench reiterated a foundational legal principle:

“Temporary injunction being an equitable relief… will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.”

Infringement Admitted, Yet Relief Denied

Paradoxically, the High Court did find that Quantum had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement against LG. The Court pointed to an affidavit filed by a Vice President of LG Korea, which it interpreted as a clear admission of commercial use of the marks “QUANTUM” and “QUANTUM DISPLAY” in the course of trade since 2015.

The Bench held that since LG was using marks where "QUANTUM" was the dominant part for similar goods (televisions and displays) falling under the same class as Quantum’s registration, there was a likelihood of consumer confusion. This, under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, constituted a prima facie case of infringement.

“The appellant… would be entitled to an injunction against any other person using a mark of which QUANTUM is a dominant part,” the Court acknowledged.

However, this finding was rendered moot by Quantum's conduct. The Court poignantly concluded that the company's own actions had sabotaged its position.

“Unfortunately, by resorting to concealment of relevant facts… the appellant has allowed the chance of securing interlocutory relief to go abegging,” the judgment reads.

Passing Off Claim Fails on Evidentiary Grounds

The Court swiftly dismissed Quantum's secondary claim of passing off. It held that the tort of passing off requires demonstrating that the defendant is attempting to misrepresent their goods as those of the plaintiff, leading to market confusion and damage to goodwill.

Citing the landmark case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories , the Court emphasized that the manner in which the goods are sold in the market is crucial. Quantum, however, failed to produce any evidence of actual consumer confusion, market sales by LG that could cause deception, or that it had established prior goodwill in the mark before LG’s adoption in 2015.

“In the absence of any evidence of such sale, the learned Commercial Court, we agree, was in no position to return any positive finding on the appellant’s plea of passing of,” the High Court affirmed.

Implications for Trademark Litigants and Practitioners

This judgment serves as a powerful cautionary tale for intellectual property litigants. It underscores that courts will not hesitate to deny equitable remedies, regardless of the apparent merits of an infringement claim, if a party engages in suppression or misrepresentation.

Key takeaways for legal practitioners include:

1. Duty of Candor is Paramount:

The obligation to approach the court with "clean hands" is not a mere procedural formality. It is a substantive requirement for obtaining equitable relief like interim injunctions.

2. Scrutinize Registration Validity:

The case highlights the importance of thoroughly vetting the validity and history of a client's trademark registration before initiating an infringement action. Any ambiguity or procedural irregularity can become a fatal flaw.

3. Evidence is Key for Passing Off:

A passing off claim cannot succeed on mere assertions. Litigants must present concrete evidence of market use, consumer perception, and the defendant's mode of sale to establish a credible case of misrepresentation.

4. A Strong Case Isn't Everything:

This ruling demonstrates that procedural integrity can outweigh the substantive strength of a claim at the interim stage. Concealment of a weakness can be more damaging than the weakness itself.

Ultimately, by upholding the Commercial Court's decision, the Delhi High Court has sent a clear and unequivocal message: the pursuit of justice requires absolute integrity, and the Court's equitable jurisdiction is reserved exclusively for those who adhere to it.