Bombay High Court Vacates Temporary Trademark Injunction Granted To Asian Paints Over Suppression

The Bombay High Court has recently vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction previously granted to Asian Paints Limited against Apex Metchem, holding that the company suppressed material facts, including the defendant's incorporation in 1995 and its use of the mark “APEX” as part of its trade name in relation to identical goods.

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, on March 30, 2026, observed that Asian Paints failed in its duty of full and fair disclosure by not specifically bringing to the Court's attention that the defendant had been incorporated in 1995 and was engaged in the same line of business.

The court observed that passing an ex-parte order without notice can "cripple the Defendant's business" and requires a "full and reasonably accurate disclosure" to ensure that such relief is warranted.

“There is a greater duty imposed on the Plaintiff who seeks to move without notice to the Defendant, which is an exception to the rule of hearing both the parties…The Plaintiff coming with a case of trade mark infringement and seeking to move without notice must make necessary reasonable enquiries and must not only place all material facts before the Court, but also draw attention of the Court to all material facts, which would prima facie show that the Defendant would have no defence to the claim of infringement,” it observed.

Apex Metchem Private Limited had filed this application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction that had restrained its use of the mark “APEX” and led to the seizure of its goods by the Court Receiver.

The company sought this relief on the ground that Asian Paints had suppressed material facts regarding the defendant's incorporation in 1995 and its use of the mark as part of its trade name, despite having annexed extracts of the defendant's website to the plaint, which disclosed this information.

Claiming that the ex-parte order had severely impacted its business with a turnover of around ₹80 crore, the defendant argued that the plaintiff failed in its duty of fair disclosure.

The defendant further contended that Asian Paints had obtained the injunction without specifically drawing the court's attention to the defendant's corporate existence and activities since 1995, even though such information was available from material placed on record.

The High Court accordingly vacated the injunction and ordered the release of the seized goods, holding that the plaintiff had failed to specifically disclose and draw attention to material facts relating to the defendant's incorporation and use of the mark as part of its trade name.

The bench noted that “There is no pleading about the nature of inquiries conducted by the Plaintiff as in today's era of advanced technology, information is available at a click of the button. The Defendant is incorporated as private limited company and the details about the business, incorporation etc would be available within public domain and the information would be easily accessible.”

The court further held that the defendant's existence since 1995 and use of the mark as part of its trade name were material facts which, if properly disclosed, could have led the Court to issue notice instead of granting ex-parte relief.

The court accordingly allowed the application and held that the ex-parte injunction dated September 23, 2025, stands vacated.

The bench directed that the defendant's products, which had been seized and sealed by the Court Receiver, be released.

However, upon a request from Asian Paints, the Court stayed the operation of this order for a period of four weeks.