Back
Vacates Injunction Against Nugenesys, Finds Celagenex Wilfully Suppressed Facts
The has set aside an obtained by against , ruling that the injunction was procured through a . A of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, in a judgment delivered on , vacated the interim restraint order and imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Celagenex, payable to the Legal Services Committee. The decision underscores the judiciary’s zero-tolerance approach towards concealment of facts in , particularly when the suppression is found to be deliberate and part of a broader pattern of conduct.
Background: The Trademark Dispute
The dispute arose over the use of two similar marks for nutraceutical products: Celagenex’s registered trademark “NUREWIRE” (Class 5) and Nugenesys’s mark “RewireX”. Celagenex, a company co-founded by Shoyeb Abdul Gafoor Mandlekar, had manufactured and sold its product under the “NUREWIRE” brand. In , Mandlekar resigned from Celagenex, holding 99% of its founding shareholding. Soon after, in early 2025, was incorporated.
Nugenesys applied for registration of the mark “RewireX” in and subsequently launched its nutraceutical product under that mark in . Celagenex, claiming it only became aware of this launch in the first week of May 2026, filed a suit before a Single Judge of the seeking an injunction. The Single Judge granted an on , restraining Nugenesys from selling products under the “RewireX” mark.
The Appeal: Unearthing the Suppression
Nugenesys appealed the interim order, contending that Celagenex had been aware of the adoption of the “RewireX” mark since at least October 2025. The appellant argued that Celagenex had issued a to Nugenesys on , and had even filed a on . Despite this, the plaint and the injunction application claimed that Celagenex had discovered the mark only in May 2026.
The examined the record and found that Celagenex had indeed sent the notice and filed the opposition well before the alleged date of discovery. The court noted that these documents were part of the record but were “tucked away” under an obscure heading in the document index, rendering them effectively invisible to the Single Judge.
“The conduct of the Respondent in wilfully suppressing the Notice dated 29.10.2025 and the Objections dated 27.01.2026, in the plaint, stands established beyond any doubt,” the bench observed.
A Pattern of Misconduct
The court did not stop at finding suppression in this case. It also pointed to what it described as a “persistent pattern of suppression and non-disclosure” by the filing counsel representing Celagenex, across at least three separate suits. The bench referred to two earlier matters in which Single Judges had similarly recorded findings of concealment by the same counsel.
Citing the famous phrase “,” the bench remarked: “A repeated event is no longer random, but is a deliberate act. In this case, the proceedings of the three suits show a consistent pattern/trend followed by the filing counsel, by design, with an intent of interfering with the judicial process.”
The court held that Celagenex, having signed the accompanying the plaint, was “as much responsible for this suppression as is the filing counsel.” Consequently, the benefit of an obtained through concealment could not be retained.
Vacating the Injunction and Imposing Costs
The concluded that the suppression had directly influenced the grant of the , as the Single Judge was “unaware of the issuance of the Notice... and Objections.” It held that condoning the wilful suppression would cause greater harm to the judicial process than any harm caused by the continued sale of the products.
“If the Respondent’s is condoned, the harm caused to the judicial process will be far more than that caused by the sale of the Appellants’ products,” the bench observed.
Accordingly, the court vacated the injunction granted on , dismissed the interim injunction application, and directed the release of products seized from Nugenesys from . It imposed costs of ₹2 lakh on Celagenex, payable to the Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
Legal Implications and Takeaways
The judgment serves as a stern reminder to litigants and their counsel about the duty of in ex-parte proceedings. The court’s willingness to not only vacate the injunction but also impose substantial costs underscores the seriousness with which the judiciary views any attempt to mislead the court.
For intellectual property practitioners, the case highlights the importance of including all relevant correspondence—especially cease-and-desist notices and filings—in the plaint and injunction application. Failure to do so may not only result in the loss of but also expose the party to sanctions.
Moreover, the court’s observation about the pattern of conduct by the filing counsel may have wider repercussions. It signals that the judiciary is prepared to scrutinise repeated instances of suppression by the same legal representative, potentially leading to professional misconduct proceedings.
Conclusion
The ’s decision in this case reinforces the principle that the grant of is a matter of judicial discretion, exercised on the basis of complete and truthful material. Any attempt to obtain such relief through suppression will be met with swift reversal and penal costs. Legal professionals would do well to ensure that all material facts, even those that may be adverse to their case, are placed before the court in the spirit of utmost .
