Bombay HC Vacates Ex Parte Injunction in ELDER Trademark Dispute Over Suppression of Facts

The Bombay High Court has vacated an ex parte ad-interim injunction earlier granted in a trademark infringement suit filed by Elder Projects Limited against Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited, holding that the plaintiff had suppressed several material facts while seeking urgent interim relief.

The Court held that such suppression, particularly regarding prior ownership and use of the mark “ELDER” and earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court, was sufficient to disentitle the plaintiff from equitable relief at the interim stage.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne, exercising jurisdiction on the commercial side, allowed the defendant’s application seeking vacation of the ex parte injunction granted on 26.09.2025 and dismissed the plaintiff’s request for temporary injunction.

The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to approach the Court with clean hands and had withheld material facts that would have been relevant while considering grant of an injunction without notice to the defendant.

The dispute arose from a suit filed by Elder Projects Limited alleging infringement and passing off of its registered device mark containing the word “ELDER” used in relation to pharmaceutical and medicinal products.

The plaintiff claimed that it had been manufacturing and selling medicines, ointments and other pharmaceutical products under the mark since 1992–93 and had secured registration of its device mark in Class 5 in June, 2024.

According to the plaintiff, it discovered in May, 2025 that the defendant was marketing pharmaceutical products using the mark “ELDER NEUTRACITICALS” in a stylised form similar to its own mark and thereby infringing its trademark rights.

On 26.09.2025, the Court had granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark or any deceptively similar mark containing the word “ELDER” in a stylised manner.

The Court had also appointed a Court Receiver to seize goods bearing the allegedly infringing mark.

Upon being served with the injunction order, the defendant moved an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking vacation of the injunction.

The defendant argued that the plaintiff had obtained the ex parte injunction by suppressing several material facts.

It contended that the mark “ELDER” had originally been adopted and registered by Elder Pharmaceuticals Limited (EPL) in 1983, long before the plaintiff claimed to have coined the mark.

The defendant further pointed out that the plaintiff had failed to disclose that the director of the plaintiff company and the director of the defendant company were siblings and that their father had been the Managing Director of EPL.

According to the defendant, the plaintiff had also concealed the fact that it had previously worked merely as a contract manufacturer for EPL and had no independent rights in the “ELDER” mark.

The defendant also relied on multiple orders passed by the Delhi High Court in earlier litigation involving the same mark. In those proceedings, the Delhi High Court had held that EPL was the registered proprietor of the trademark “ELDER” and that the plaintiff’s use of the mark after liquidation of EPL could amount to infringement.

In one of the proceedings, the Delhi High Court had even observed that the plaintiff had raised false claims in relation to its alleged rights over the mark. The defendant argued that suppression of these orders was deliberate and was intended to secure an injunction without notice.

The plaintiff opposed the application and contended that the present suit concerned a different device mark registered in its favour and not the word mark “ELDER” registered in the name of EPL. It argued that the orders passed by the Delhi High Court were therefore irrelevant to the present dispute.

The plaintiff further submitted that it had obtained registration of its device mark through due process and was entitled to protect its statutory rights against infringement.

After considering the rival submissions, the Court held that the plaintiff had indeed suppressed several material facts that were crucial for deciding whether an ex parte injunction ought to have been granted.

The Court noted that the plaintiff had pleaded in the suit that it had coined the mark and had been using it exclusively since 1992–93. However, the record showed that EPL had been the registered proprietor and user of the “ELDER” mark since 1983.

The Court held that this fact had been completely omitted from the pleadings and that the plaintiff’s claim to be the originator of the mark was misleading.

The Court further found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose the relationship between the directors of the parties and their past association with EPL. According to the Court, these facts were material because they revealed that the dispute arose from competing claims to the mark originally used by a company managed by the parties’ family members.

The bench also noted that the plaintiff had not disclosed the earlier orders passed by the Delhi High Court refusing relief to it in respect of the “ELDER” mark; Non-disclosure of such orders, particularly while seeking an ex parte injunction, amounted to suppression of material facts, the court said.

It was reiterated that a party seeking discretionary relief such as an injunction must approach the court with clean hands; Where a litigant suppresses material facts while seeking urgent interim relief, the court is justified in vacating the injunction without examining the merits of the claim.

Holding that the suppression related to material particulars, the Court vacated the ad-interim injunction granted earlier and declined to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

For Plaintiff: Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Bhupesh Dhumatkar, Mr. Rohit Pandey and Mr. Bhavin Shah, i/b Mr. Dinesh Dubey, Advs.

For Defendant: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Nihit Nagpal, Ms. Nisha Kaba, Mr. Abhijit Singh, Mr. Anees Patel and Ms. Areen Shaikh, Advs.

Case Title: Elder Projects Limited v. Elder Neutraciticals Private Limited

Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne

Date of Judgment: 09.03.2026