{"id":10644,"date":"2025-10-24T07:14:32","date_gmt":"2025-10-24T07:14:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10644"},"modified":"2025-10-30T01:50:50","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T01:50:50","slug":"suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Suppression of Facts and Abuse of Process in Trademark Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_Trademark_Case_Chaitanya_Arora_Vs_Shoban_Salim_Thakur_%E2%80%93_Suppression_of_Material_Facts\"><\/span>Facts: Trademark Case: Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur \u2013 Suppression of Material Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff, <strong>Chaitanya Arora<\/strong>, was the proprietor of the mark \u201cDOCTOR EXTRA SOFT\u201d, used for footwear products under Class 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark and alleged that the defendants\u2014led by <strong>Shoban Salim Thakur<\/strong>, owner of Family Footwear\u2014were using a deceptively similar mark and selling identical goods, thereby infringing the plaintiff\u2019s rights.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Facts_Trademark_Case_Chaitanya_Arora_Vs_Shoban_Salim_Thakur_%E2%80%93_Suppression_of_Material_Facts\" >Facts: Trademark Case: Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur \u2013 Suppression of Material Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Specific_Issues_Considered\" >Specific Issues Considered<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Detailed_Reasoning_and_Judicial_Analysis\" >Detailed Reasoning and Judicial Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Precedents_Relied_Upon\" >Precedents Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#On_Costs_and_Judicial_Duty\" >On Costs and Judicial Duty<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suppression-of-facts-abuse-of-process-in-trademark-litigation\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>On 30th June 2025, the Court had granted an <em>ex parte ad interim injunction<\/em>, restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademark. Later, the defendants challenged this order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to vacate the injunction on the ground that it had been obtained through suppression of material facts.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff initially approached the Bombay High Court seeking urgent interim relief against the defendants without prior notice. The Court, relying on the plaintiff\u2019s representation and supporting documents, issued an ex parte injunction.<\/p>\n<p>However, the defendants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, asserting that the plaintiff had misled the Court by hiding crucial information\u2014especially a territorial limitation\/disclaimer attached to the plaintiff\u2019s trademark registration in Class 25, which confined its protection only to the State of Maharashtra.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants also produced material showing that their business was significantly harmed due to the injunction and that the plaintiff\u2019s conduct amounted to misleading the Court.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central question before the Court was whether the plaintiff had suppressed material facts in obtaining the ex parte injunction and whether such suppression justified setting aside the order and dismissing the entire suit.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"specific-issues\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Specific_Issues_Considered\"><\/span>Specific Issues Considered<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the plaintiff\u2019s Class 25 registration, limited to Maharashtra, could form the basis for pan-India relief.<\/li>\n<li>Whether failure to disclose this limitation amounted to deliberate suppression.<\/li>\n<li>Whether such suppression vitiated the plaintiff\u2019s entire case and warranted exemplary costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_and_Judicial_Analysis\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning and Judicial Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court examined the record in detail and noted several serious inconsistencies in the plaintiff\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n<p>First, it was undisputed that the plaintiff\u2019s registration in Class 25 for footwear contained a specific territorial limitation restricting the mark\u2019s validity to Maharashtra. Despite this, the plaintiff had filed a pan-India suit seeking to restrain the defendants in Delhi and other states. The Court held this as a deliberate act of suppression.<\/p>\n<p>The Judge found that the plaintiff\u2019s omission was not \u201cinadvertent.\u201d The plaint contained lengthy paragraphs discussing various registrations and proceedings in Class 25, yet the crucial territorial restriction was omitted. The Court concluded that this could not be a genuine mistake.<\/p>\n<p>The Court emphasized the principle that a party seeking ex parte ad interim relief must make <strong>full and fair disclosure<\/strong> of all relevant facts. This duty becomes more stringent when the opposing party is not present.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"precedents-relied\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Precedents_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Precedents Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Name<\/th>\n<th>Citation<\/th>\n<th>Key Principle<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India<\/td>\n<td>(2007) 8 SCC 449<\/td>\n<td>Suppression of material facts is sufficient to reject relief.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav v. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society<\/td>\n<td>(2013) 11 SCC 531<\/td>\n<td>Full disclosure is a mandatory obligation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India<\/td>\n<td>2010 SCC OnLine SC 1254<\/td>\n<td>Court must protect itself from unscrupulous litigants.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Kewal Ashokbhai Vasoya v. Surabhakti Goods Pvt. Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3335<\/td>\n<td>Ex parte injunctions require fair disclosure of all material information.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd.<\/td>\n<td>2023 SCC OnLine Bom 764<\/td>\n<td>Trademark registration statements are relevant in later proceedings.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Om Prakash Gupta v. Praveen Kumar<\/td>\n<td>Delhi High Court, 2025<\/td>\n<td>Disclaimers are material facts that must be disclosed when seeking injunctions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>Applying these precedents, Justice Doctor concluded that the plaintiff had taken an inconsistent and dishonest stand. Before the Trade Marks Registry, the plaintiff had expressly stated that it did not claim exclusivity over \u201cDOCTOR\u201d or \u201cSOFT,\u201d but in this suit, it claimed infringement based on those very words.<\/p>\n<p>The Judge emphasized that it was not for the plaintiff to decide what facts were material. The duty of candor required full transparency, especially in ex parte matters.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff\u2019s later attempt to justify the omission as \u201cinadvertent\u201d was rejected as an afterthought, which the Court described as \u201can affront to the Court.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"costs-judicial-duty\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Costs_and_Judicial_Duty\"><\/span>On Costs and Judicial Duty<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court referred to <strong>Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure<\/strong>, as amended by Section 16 of the <strong>Commercial Courts Act, 2015<\/strong>, allowing imposition of costs based on party conduct.<\/p>\n<p>Relying on <em>Sai Trading Co. v. KRBL Ltd.<\/em> and <em>Dashrath B. Rathod v. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, the Court held that unscrupulous litigants who misuse judicial processes must face exemplary costs.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also quoted <em>Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik v. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar<\/em> (2017) 5 SCC 496, emphasizing that litigants abusing court procedures should be penalized to discourage dishonesty in litigation.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"final-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>After detailed analysis, Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the plaintiff had:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Deliberately suppressed material facts regarding the territorial limitation of its trademark.<\/li>\n<li>Misled the Court by seeking ex parte relief on false premises.<\/li>\n<li>Abused the process of law by not acting with clean hands.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Accordingly, the Court dismissed the entire suit and imposed <strong>exemplary costs of \u20b925,00,000 each<\/strong> on Defendants 2 and 3, payable by the plaintiff. The Court Receiver was discharged, and all seized goods were ordered to be returned to the defendants. All interim applications and reports were disposed of.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment underscores that intellectual property rights are not absolute and equitable conduct is paramount. Even a registered proprietor cannot claim relief if it approaches the Court dishonestly or conceals material facts. The ruling reinforces that truth and transparency are foundational to justice, and litigants attempting to manipulate the system will face severe consequences.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Order Date<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>15th October, 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Interim Application (L) No. 18278 of 2025 in Commercial Suit (L) No. 18197 of 2025 with Leave Petition (L) No. 18257 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>2025:BHC-OS:19616<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Commercial Division)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Judge<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Justice Arif S. Doctor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts: Trademark Case: Chaitanya Arora Vs. Shoban Salim Thakur \u2013 Suppression of Material Facts The plaintiff, Chaitanya Arora, was the proprietor of the mark \u201cDOCTOR EXTRA SOFT\u201d, used for footwear products under Class 25 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark and alleged that the defendants\u2014led by Shoban Salim<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[1199,841],"class_list":{"0":"post-10644","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-intellectual-property-law","8":"tag-trademark-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10644","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}