Corporates Have 'Lost Any Fear Of Consequences': Delhi High Court Denies Interim Relief In Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has refused interim relief to More Than Water Private Limited, which sells packaged drinking water under the "MORE THAN WATERBOX" brand, in its trademark dispute with Nesco Limited, maker of "MY WATER BOX" packaged drinking water.

The court held that More Than Water was not entitled to discretionary relief after relying on prima facie manipulated invoices and withholding material facts about its food safety license application.

A division bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also lifted an earlier restriction that confined More Than Water's sales to Gujarat and Nesco's sales to Maharashtra.

It also restrained Nesco from relying on its registered "MY WATER BOX" trademark against More Than Water or any third party until it proves the authenticity of the documents submitted to obtain the registration.

After finding that both More Than Water and Nesco had relied on prima facie unreliable documents to support their claims of prior use, the division bench observed,

"This case is a classic example of the ills that have crept into the legal proceedings where corporate entities like the parties herein have lost any fear of consequences of relying upon false documents in Court proceedings and proceedings before the Registrar of Trademarks. The conduct of the parties in relying upon false documents makes the task of the Court at the interim stage to determine the claims of prior user difficult and thus interferes with the administration of justice."

More Than Water claimed rights over the marks "WATERBOX", "WATER BOX", "MORE THAN WATERBOX" and "WATERBOX IS THE RIGHT CHOICE". It said the marks had been used since 2018 through its predecessor, Meera Enterprises.

The company approached the court after discovering that Nesco had obtained registration for the device mark "MY WATER BOX" with a claim of use from 2020. It alleged that the rival word mark, wave design and trade dress were deceptively similar.

A single judge had earlier refused to grant an absolute interim injunction after finding that More Than Water failed to establish a prima facie case of goodwill and reputation. The judge had, however, restricted More Than Water's sales to Gujarat and Nesco's sales to Maharashtra until the suit is decided. Both companies challenged that order.

The division bench agreed that the invoices from 2020 relied on by More Than Water to establish prior use of its mark were prima facie unreliable. It noted that the invoices carried an HSN code applicable to petroleum products rather than packaged drinking water. The company also failed to produce supporting GST returns at this stage.

The bench also found that More Than Water misled the court during the appeal. It relied on the pendency of its application for a Central FSSAI licence without disclosing that the application had already been rejected.

"No party, and more so a plaintiff, can seek discretionary relief from the Court by relying upon false information and false documents.", the court observed.

The court held that this conduct disentitled More Than Water from obtaining discretionary relief. It therefore refused to interfere with the single judge's order declining an injunction.

The bench was equally critical of Nesco. It observed that the company had relied on ex facie fabricated photographs and prima facie unreliable invoices before the Registrar of Trademarks to support its claim of using the "MY WATER BOX" mark from 2020. The court described this conduct as "equally deplorable".

Although Nesco stated that it would rely only on its use of the mark from 2025, the court restrained it from relying on its trademark registration during the pendency of the suit. The restraint will continue until Nesco proves the authenticity of the documents submitted before the trademark registry.

The court also observed that "WATERBOX" was descriptive, comparing it to "WATERBOTTLE". It held that the word was non-distinctive and incapable of distinguishing the product by itself. The issue of deceptive similarity between the rival marks was left open for trial.

The bench, however, found no basis for restricting the companies to Gujarat and Maharashtra. It set aside those directions and allowed both companies to sell their products in accordance with applicable law and their licences. More Than Water was cautioned to sell outside Gujarat only if permitted under law and its FSSAI licence.

The court also observed that if the invoices or other supporting documents relied on by either company are found to be fake during trial, appropriate perjury proceedings would be initiated against the officers of the concerned company. It further clarified that Nesco's continued use of the disputed mark during the suit would not create any equities in its favour.