Bombay High Court Upholds Refusal Of Interim Injunction Io Laser Shaving In SETMAX Blades Trademark Dispute
Riya Rathore
13 April 2026 3:52 PM IST
The Bombay High Court has recently declined to step in against a Single Judge's refusal to grant interim relief to Laser Shaving India Pvt Ltd in its dispute over the “SETMAX” mark, noting that the company had suppressed key facts and taken inconsistent positions.
In a judgment delivered on April 6, 2026, a Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said there was no reason to disturb the Single Judge's exercise of discretion. The court pointed out that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands, which by itself was enough to deny equitable relief.
The Bench found that this conduct alone was enough to deny the relief sought.
“Fraud becomes a crime when it is 'known misrepresentation of truth' and such fraud avoid all judicial acts and any judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud is in nullity and cannot be enforced. However, in our view, fraud is a matter of evidence and at this stage, we cannot conclusively establish whether there is a fraud played by the Plaintiff, but suffice it to note that the Plaintiff has not come before the Court with clean hands and having discredited himself, the Single Judge has refused him the interim relief,” the Division Bench noted.
Laser Shaving India had filed the appeal against RKM International Products to challenge the Single Judge's refusal to grant an interim injunction on June 25, 2025 against the use of the “SETMAX” trademark.
The company sought to restrain the respondents from selling identical razor blades, claiming ownership of the brand and its artistic trade dress based on continuous use since September 2023.
They argued that the respondents were infringing its copyright and passing off their identical blades as the appellant's own goods. They further submitted that there was no deliberate attempt to conceal material, asserting they were unaware of the relationship between the respondents and the trademark's original applicant, Galactic.
RKM International Products Pvt Ltd, on the other hand, told the court that Laser Shaving had obtained initial ex-parte relief by playing a fraud on the court and suppressing its response to a Trade Marks Registry examination report.
The respondents pleaded that they are authorized licensees of Galactic Conquistadors FZE, which applied for the mark a day before the appellant. They argued that the appellant was bound by prosecution history estoppel, having previously told the Registry that its mark was visually and structurally completely different from Galactic's mark to avoid an official objection.
The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel seeks to estop a person from claiming any advantage associated with a right which he has consciously waived in previous proceedings.
The Division Bench, perusing the Single Judge's order, noted that the lower court had dismissed the application upon finding that the "applicant's iniquitous conduct" and failure to establish a prima facie case disentitled it to relief.
By applying the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, the Court observed that Laser Shaving's contradictory stands and failure to approach the court with clean hands disentitled it to any discretionary relief.
“Applying the well settled Principle that a party, who seeks discretionary relief in form of an interim injunction must approach the Court with clean hands and if it does not do so, the relief can be refused,” the court noted.
The court dismissed the appeal, remarking that the Single Judge had rightly refused any indulgence on the grounds of suppression and estoppel.
Consequently, the Court upheld the order dated June 25, 2025, and disposed of all pending interim applications.
For Laser Shaving: Advocates Rohan Kadam with Rucha Vaidya, Ashutosh Kane, Vedangi Soman and Sumana Roychoudhary i/b W.S. Kane and Co.
For Respondents: Advocate Carl Patel with Gaurav Beyani