A Party With Unclean Hands Is Not Entitled To Equitable Relief U/O 39 CPC: Delhi High Court

“The Appellant Concealed That Its Word Mark Registration Was Invalid—Equitable Relief Under Order 39 CPC Is Not For Those Who Mislead the Court”: Today, On November 4, 2025, the Delhi High Court reaffirming the clean hands doctrine in trademark jurisprudence. Dismissing an appeal against denial of interim injunction, the Court refused equitable relief to the appellant for having “deliberately and wilfully concealed material facts”, despite prima facie merit in its trademark infringement claim.

This ruling sharply clarifies the scope of relief available in trademark suits where parties have acted in bad faith, especially where registration validity and user claims are at issue. While the Court acknowledged that the appellant may have had a plausible claim of infringement based on a registered device mark, the appeal was ultimately dismissed due to "serious and material concealment" by the appellant.

Device Mark Versus Word Mark And Allegations Of Infringement

The dispute arose out of a suit filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd. before the Shahdara Commercial Court in Delhi, seeking to restrain LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and others from using the marks “QUANTUM” and “QUANTUM DISPLAY” in connection with TV and display-related goods, on the ground of trademark infringement and passing off.

The appellant claimed ownership over the word mark “QUANTUM” and a device mark containing the same term, registered in Class 9 for computer accessories. The interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was sought to restrain LG’s use of “QUANTUM” related marks, but the Commercial Court rejected the injunction on December 15, 2021, citing concealment of facts, lack of valid word mark registration, and insufficient proof of use by the respondents.

"Registration Of The Word Mark 'QUANTUM' Was Improper And Concealed By The Appellant"

The High Court’s primary concern was the invalidity of the word mark registration on which the appellant based its claim. The Court found that the appellant never actually applied for the “QUANTUM” word mark, and that its application (No. 1291193) was for a device mark, yet it had secured a registration certificate for the word mark instead.

The Court noted:

“By suppressing the above affidavit, the appellant has concealed its own admission… that Application No. 1291193 was for the composite mark, and not for the QUANTUM word mark.” [Para 18.7]

Further, the appellant failed to produce Form TM-16, which is mandatory to amend a trademark application. The Court had, in earlier proceedings, explicitly directed the appellant to submit this document, but it was never furnished. The Bench observed:

“No such Form TM-16 has been filed by the appellant, thereby indicating that the initial application... was never amended.” [Para 18.9]

Thus, the entire registration of the word mark QUANTUM was found to be invalid, and the Court held that the appellant’s concealment of this fact was deliberate and wilful, precluding any equitable interim relief.

“Affidavit Of LG Vice President Constitutes Clear Admission Of Use In Trade Since 2015”—Infringement Claim Valid But Relief Denied

Despite this, the High Court did not shy away from recognizing that the respondents were using the impugned marks “QUANTUM” and “QUANTUM DISPLAY” in connection with goods overlapping Class 9, including television displays.

Referring to the affidavit filed by LG Korea’s Vice President, the Court noted:

“This clearly admits commercial exploitation, in the course of trade, of the marks QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY by the respondents.” [Para 19.4]

The Bench held that the respondents’ own admission of user established a prima facie case of trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as there was similarity in the goods and potential for consumer confusion:

“The appellant… would be entitled to an injunction against any other person using a mark of which QUANTUM is a dominant part.” [Para 19.11]

However, the concealment of the registration basis fatally undermined the claim:

“Unfortunately, by resorting to concealment of relevant facts… the appellant has allowed the chance of securing interlocutory relief to go abegging.” [Para 19.15]

“No Case Of Passing Off Made Out—User Not Proved, Goodwill Not Established”

The Court rejected the claim of passing off outright. While the respondents admitted to adopting the marks in 2015, the appellant failed to demonstrate actual market use or consumer confusion, or even that the manner of use was likely to mislead consumers.

Citing Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, the Court reiterated:

“The issue of whether a case of passing off is, or is not, made out has to be assessed on the basis of the manner in which the defendants’ goods are sold in the market.” [Para 20.4]

In absence of such evidence, and the appellant’s failure to prove prior goodwill before 2015, the Court ruled:

“We agree… that the appellant could not have successfully obtained an injunction against the respondents from use of the marks QUANTUM and QUANTUM DISPLAY on a plea of passing off.” [Para 20.6]

 “A Litigant Who Misleads The Court Cannot Seek Interim Protection”

Invoking the well-established equitable principle that “he who seeks equity must come with clean hands”, the High Court held that no relief under Order XXXIX CPC can be granted in favour of a party that misleads the court.

Citing Seema Arshad Zaheer v. MCGM and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, the Court reiterated:

“Temporary injunction being an equitable relief… will be exercised only when the plaintiff’s conduct is free from blame and he approaches the court with clean hands.” [Para 18.11]

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commercial Court’s order denying interim injunction.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025