Delhi Courts Unforgiving on Litigant Misconduct in Trademark Disputes, Deny Relief Despite Merits

New Delhi – In a series of recent rulings, Delhi's commercial courts have sent an unequivocal message to intellectual property litigants: approaching the court with anything less than "clean hands" can be fatal to a claim, regardless of its underlying merits. Two significant decisions, one from the Delhi High Court and another from a Commercial Court in Saket, underscore a stringent judicial stance on the concealment of material facts, reaffirming that the potent equitable remedy of an injunction is a privilege reserved for the scrupulous.

These judgments serve as a critical cautionary tale for trademark owners and their counsel, illustrating that even a prima facie case of infringement can be lost at the interlocutory stage if the plaintiff’s conduct is found to be blameworthy.

---

High Court: A Meritorious Infringement Claim Derailed by "Wilful Concealment"

In a striking decision dated November 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court, while dismissing an appeal in Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. v. LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. , upheld the denial of an interim injunction despite finding that the plaintiff had a valid, prima facie case of trademark infringement. The Court’s refusal to grant relief was based entirely on the appellant's "deliberate and wilful concealment of material facts" concerning the validity of its own trademark registration.

The dispute centered on the mark "QUANTUM." Quantum Hi-Tech, the appellant, sought to restrain LG from using the marks “QUANTUM” and “QUANTUM DISPLAY” for television-related goods, claiming infringement of its registered word and device marks in Class 9.

The Fatal Flaw: An Invalid Registration and a Calculated Omission

The High Court's investigation revealed a fundamental flaw in the appellant's case. The cornerstone of its claim—a registration for the word mark "QUANTUM"—was found to be improperly obtained. The Court noted that the appellant's original application was for a composite device mark, not a word mark. Yet, it had somehow secured a registration certificate for the word mark and based its entire suit upon it.

The appellant's misconduct was compounded by its failure to disclose its own admission in a prior affidavit that the application was for a composite mark. The bench observed with disapproval:

“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.”

Furthermore, when explicitly directed by the court to produce Form TM-16, the document required to amend a trademark application, the appellant failed to do so. This led the Court to conclude that the registration was invalid and the concealment was intentional.

Infringement Found, But Equity Denied

Paradoxically, the High Court did find merit in the core infringement claim. It examined an affidavit from an LG Vice President and concluded it constituted a "clear admission" of commercial use of the "QUANTUM" marks since 2015 on goods similar to the appellant's. This, the Court held, established a prima facie case of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Ordinarily, this finding would pave the way for an injunction. However, the plaintiff's conduct proved to be an insurmountable hurdle. The Court poignantly remarked:

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

Citing seminal cases like S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath , the Court invoked the foundational equitable principle that "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands." It held that interim injunctions under Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code are discretionary and will not be granted to a litigant who misleads the court. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed, leaving the appellant without protection despite LG's infringing use.

---

Commercial Court: Suit Dismissed for Concealing Prior Knowledge and Failing to Prove Use

Echoing a similar judicial sentiment, the Commercial Court at Saket, in M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) v. M/s M.E. Technology , dismissed a trademark infringement suit outright, finding that the plaintiff had suppressed crucial facts and failed to establish its primary claim of being the prior user of the "ME" mark.

Jaipur-based ME Testing Laboratory sued Jodhpur-based ME Technology, alleging infringement of its registered "ME" mark in Class 42. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, a former consultant, continued using a deceptively similar name after a two-year Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) expired in 2019.

The Unraveling of the Plaintiff's Narrative

The defendant, ME Technology, countered that it had independently adopted its name in 2016 from "Madan Engineering Technology" and had been operating continuously since then. The case turned on the 2017 MoU between the two parties.

The court, presided over by District Judge Savita Rao, scrutinized the MoU and found it to be the plaintiff's undoing. The document proved that ME Testing Laboratory was fully aware of ME Technology’s name and business operations as far back as 2017. This directly contradicted the plaintiff's assertion that it had only recently discovered the alleged infringement in 2020.

The court found this misrepresentation to be a deliberate attempt to mislead. More critically, it held that the evidence suggested the defendant, not the plaintiff, was the prior user of the mark. In a decisive finding, the court stated:

“plaintiff has failed to establish on record its claim of prior user or that the defendant was permissive user of the trademark /trade name of the plaintiff for period of 2 years by virtue of the MOU... Thereby defendant rather seems to be prior user of the trade name 'M.E.' than plaintiff.”

The suit was dismissed not only for its lack of merit but also because the plaintiff had abused the legal process by suppressing relevant facts. The court concluded that ME Testing Laboratory had not approached it with clean hands and had failed to substantiate its claims with credible evidence.

---

Analysis and Key Takeaways for Legal Practitioners

These two judgments, while distinct in their procedural outcomes—one denying an interim injunction and the other dismissing the suit itself—converge on a powerful central theme: procedural integrity is paramount.

1. Due Diligence is Non-Negotiable: The Quantum case is a stark reminder for legal counsel to conduct rigorous due diligence on the validity and history of a client's IP assets before filing suit. Relying on a registration certificate at face value without examining the prosecution history can have devastating consequences.

2. Full and Frank Disclosure: Both rulings highlight that courts demand complete transparency, especially in ex-parte or interlocutory hearings. Any prior relationship, communication, or knowledge of the defendant's activities must be disclosed. Attempting to frame a narrative of recent discovery when prior knowledge exists is a high-risk strategy that can backfire spectacularly.

3. The High Bar for Equitable Relief: An interim injunction is a powerful tool, and courts are increasingly acting as vigilant gatekeepers. These decisions reaffirm that the three-fold test of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury is predicated on the plaintiff's unblemished conduct. A plaintiff's misconduct can vitiate even the strongest prima facie case.

4. Prior Use Remains a Potent Defense: The ME Laboratory case reinforces the strength of the prior user defense in trademark law. A registered proprietor cannot dislodge a party that can prove it has been using an identical or similar mark from an earlier date.

In an era of aggressive IP litigation, these rulings from the Delhi courts serve to recalibrate the scales, emphasizing that the pursuit of justice requires not just a valid claim, but also a virtuous claimant. For the Indian legal community, the message is clear: the path to equitable relief is paved with candor, and those who choose to conceal or misrepresent do so at their own peril.