Bombay High Court Sets Aside Interim 'ELDER' Trademark Injunction Granted To Elder Projects Against Elder Nutraceuticals

The Bombay High Court on Monday vacated an ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted to Elder Projects Ltd in a trademark infringement suit against its group company, Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd., holding that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts while seeking injunction without notice to the opposing party.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that the injunction, granted on September 26, 2025, restrained Elder Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd from using the mark “ELDER” or any deceptively similar mark for pharmaceutical products.

While considering the application seeking vacation of the injunction, the court found that the plaintiff had obtained the ex-parte relief by suppressing material facts.

“Considering the overall conspectus of the case I am of the view that Plaintiff has moved this Court for injunction without notice to the Defendant by grossly suppressing material facts. Suppression of material facts has a clear bearing on Plaintiff's entitlement to temporary injunction. In my view therefore, perfect case is made out for vacation of ad-interim injunction order dated 26 September 2025,” the court said.

Elder Projects had filed the suit alleging infringement and passing off of its registered device mark containing the word “ELDER”, claiming use of the mark since 1992-93 and stating that the mark was registered on June 12, 2024.

The company contended that it noticed Elder Nutraceuticals' products using a similar mark in May 2025 and thereafter issued a cease-and-desist notice before approaching the court.

While hearing an application filed by Elder Nutraceuticals seeking vacation of the injunction, the court found that the plaintiff had failed to disclose several material facts.

It was noted that the trademark “ELDER” had earlier been registered and used by Elder Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (EPL), incorporated in 1983, which was the original proprietor of the mark.

The court also recorded that the plaintiff had suppressed the relationship between the directors of the two companies and their past association with EPL, as well as earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court where claims by the plaintiff regarding the “ELDER” mark had been rejected.

Holding that these omissions concerned “material particulars” that could have affected the court's decision on interim relief, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands.

Consequently, the court vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction granted earlier to Elder Projects and directed it to pay Rs 1 lakh as costs to Elder Nutraceuticals.