The case concerns a trademark dispute where Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd., the defendant, sought to vacate an ex-parte injunction granted to Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. The injunction temporarily restrained Dharampal Satyapal from using the "MAZE" mark, which Parle argued would cause confusion with its "MAZELO" brand. Dharampal contended that Parle failed to disclose essential facts about the trademark's history and a rectification application, arguing that this omission misled the court into granting the ex-parte order.

1. Background of the Injunction (Para 1-2)

• Facts: Parle obtained an ex-parte injunction to prevent Dharampal from using the "MAZE" trademark, claiming similarity with their "MAZELO" mark. Dharampal filed an application to vacate this injunction.
• Issue: Whether the injunction was granted based on full disclosure of material facts.

2. Arguments by Dharampal (Para 3-29)

• Material Non-Disclosure: Dharampal argued that Parle suppressed facts, particularly two applications filed with the Trademark Registry regarding "MAZELO." They referenced relevant cases to support the duty of full disclosure in ex-parte injunctions.
• Trademark Usage: Dharampal stated that "MAZE" had been used publicly since 2019, gaining significant market presence.

3. Arguments by Parle (Para 46-65)

• Defense of Full Disclosure: Parle countered that the alleged non-disclosed facts were immaterial to the injunction for passing off, as "MAZELO" was a registered mark.
• Validity of Trademark: Parle asserted the distinctiveness of "MAZELO," arguing it is a coined term not descriptive of the product, thus eligible for protection.

4. Court’s Analysis (Para 66-69)

• Disclosure Requirements: The court analyzed whether Parle's omission of the initial rectification application was material. It concluded that the disclosure was adequate as Parle did indicate a challenge to the "MAZE" mark.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court emphasized that under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC, non-disclosure must involve material facts that significantly impact the case’s outcome. It found that the facts Parle allegedly omitted were not sufficiently material to vacate the injunction. The court reaffirmed that trademark distinctiveness and use in the public domain are key considerations in passing-off cases.

Key Acts and Sections Discussed

1. Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 4 of CPC - Relating to the granting and vacation of injunctions.
2. Trademark Act, 1999 - Sections concerning trademark registration, distinctiveness, and rectification procedures.

Subjects:

• #TrademarkDispute
• #MaterialDisclosure
• #Injunctions
• #PassingOff