Bombay High Court Refuses MINCO Injunction Against Sister Concern Over 13-Year Acquiescence

The Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal by Minco India Private Limited, affirming a Single Judge's decision to deny an interim injunction against Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited, a company run by the appellant's director's brother.

The court found that the plaintiff had been aware of the defendant's use of the “MINCO” mark since 2012 yet chose not to act for over 13 years. That prolonged inaction, the bench held, amounted to clear acquiescence, a complete defence in a trademark infringement claim.

In its March 18, 2026 judgment, a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande also flagged suppression of material facts. The record showed that both companies trace back to the same family business, that their directors, who are real brothers, had served on each other's boards until 2015, and that a 2012 “No Objection Certificate” had been issued permitting the defendant to adopt the “MINCO” name. None of this, the Court noted, was fully disclosed when relief was sought.

The court noted that both companies originated from the same family business and were promoted by the same patriarch. It recorded that the directors of the two companies are real brothers who had served on each other's boards until 2015. It also found that the plaintiff had consented to the defendant's name change in 2012 but failed to disclose this in its pleadings.

The appellant sought protection for its registered trademark “MINCO INDIA” in Class 09, which covers scientific and measuring instruments such as gauges and flow meters. It claimed exclusive rights based on use since 1982 and alleged that the defendant had adopted an identical mark for similar goods with the intent to cause confusion in the market.

The respondent, backing the Single Judge's decision, argued that key facts had been left out. It pointed to the plaintiff's knowledge of the defendant's use of the mark since 2012 and said no objection was raised for over a decade, despite the use being open and continuous

It also contended that, in a commercial suit, the plaintiff was under a statutory obligation to file a truthful “Statement of Truth”, which it had failed to comply with in substance.

After examining the record, the Division Bench upheld the finding that the plaintiff had knowledge of the defendant's use of “MINCO” since 2012, including through the NOC and the parties' shared directorships until 2015, yet did not initiate any action until 2024.

“The defendant has adopted a stand of openly, extensively and continuously using the trading name with mark 'MINCO' since 2012, to the complete knowledge of the plaintiff and the plaintiff's inaction for over 13 years while the defendant continued its business under the trading name 'MINCO' building a formidable business with cumulative sales turnover, in our view, amount to clear acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff and acquiescence is a complete defence to an infringement action,” the court held.

The bench further observed that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the defendant, which had been openly and continuously using the mark and had built goodwill over time, while the plaintiff, despite being aware of such use, had failed to object for over a decade.

“Since the balance of convenience is in favour of the defendant, who has been openly and continuously using 'MINCO' as a part of its trade name since September 2012 and has earned reputation and goodwill by the use of the trading name and the plaintiff on the other hand, being aware of the same, never objected, nor did it initiate any action, till the time when it filed the present Suit, we do not find any legal lacunae or error in the impugned order," the bench observed.

Holding that the single judge's refusal of interim relief was based on settled principles governing injunctions,the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.

For Appellant: Advocate Pranshul Dube with Asma Nadaf and Maithri Porwal

For Respondent: Advocate Hiren Kamod with Anees Patel instructed by Mayuresh Borkar