Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a Commercial Suit for trade mark infringement and passing off filed by Shoban Salim Thakur, sole proprietor of M/s. Family Footwear, against Chaitanya Arora, Chaitanya Enterprises, and Sonu Shah (sole proprietor of Sonu Enterprises), concerning the use of the mark 'DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT' for footwear. On 30th June 2025, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark. Subsequently, the defendants were served and filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to vacate the ex parte order on the ground that the plaintiff had obtained it by suppressing material facts. The defendants alleged three specific suppressions: first, the plaintiff's trade mark registration in Class 25, which was most relevant for footwear, contained a limitation that it was exclusive only to the State of Maharashtra, a fact not disclosed; second, the plaintiff failed to disclose that in opposition proceedings before the Trade Mark Registry, Defendant No. 1 had filed a counter statement and evidence affidavit in December 2024 asserting user of the impugned mark since April 2022, contrary to the plaintiff's claim of first becoming aware of the defendants' use on 6th March 2025; and third, the plaintiff had taken a diametrically opposite stand during its registration. The plaintiff in rejoinder contended the omission was inadvertent and did not affect its entitlement. The defendants argued that each suppression was material and deliberate, citing Om Prakash Gupta v. Praveen Kumar. The court heard arguments on 30th September 2025 and reserved judgment, which was pronounced on 15th October 2025. The provided judgment text ends with the defendants' submissions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 30.06.2025 should be vacated on grounds of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (10) 50
Interim Application (L) No. 18278 of 2025 in Commercial Suit (L) No. 18197 of 2025 with Leave Petition (L) No. 18257 of 2025
For Plaintiff: Mr. Janak Dwarkadas a/w Namrata Vinod, Rashmin Khandekar, Pooja Jain, Bhavi Gada, Samaruddhi Naik, Suhail Shariff, Sherin Baby and Mohammad Omar Hashmi; For Defendant: Mr. Hiren Kamod a/w Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Prem Khullar, Vatsala Batra, Gaurav Gogia, Anees Patel, Aviral Srivastava, Rajat A. i/b Legasis Partners; Mr. Deepak Bhalerao, Second Assistant to Court Receiver, present
Shoban Salim Thakur (Plaintiff)
1. Chaitanya Arora, 2. Chaitanya Enterprises, 3. Sonu Shah (Defendants)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Commercial Suit for trade mark infringement and passing off, with interim application for ad interim injunction.
Remedy Sought
Defendants sought to vacate the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 30.06.2025 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Filing Reason
Defendants alleged that the plaintiff obtained the ex parte order by suppressing material facts, including the geographical limitation on its Class 25 trade mark registration, prior user evidence by the defendants, and inconsistent stands taken during registration.
Previous Decisions
Ex parte ad interim order dated 30.06.2025 passed by the same court restraining the defendants from using the impugned trade mark in relation to the sale of footwear.
Issues
Whether the ex parte ad interim injunction dated 30.06.2025 should be vacated on grounds of suppression of material facts by the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff's failure to disclose the limitation/disclaimer on its Class 25 registration, the defendants' prior user evidence, and the inconsistent stand constituted material suppression warranting vacation of the injunction.
Whether the plaintiff's registration in Class 25, limited to Maharashtra, disentitled it to nationwide relief.
Submissions/Arguments
The defendants argued that the plaintiff suppressed three material facts: (I) the Class 25 registration contained a limitation that it was exclusive only to the State of Maharashtra; (II) Defendant No. 1 had filed evidence of user of the impugned mark since April 2022 in December 2024, contradicting the plaintiff's claim of first knowledge on 06.03.2025; (III) the plaintiff took a diametrically opposite stand during its registration. They contended that each ground independently warranted vacation, and the suppression was deliberate, evidenced by the plaintiff's detailed averments about Class 25 while omitting the limitation. They relied on Om Prakash Gupta v. Praveen Kumar to argue that suppression of a limitation/disclaimer is material and warrants dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiff in rejoinder contended that the omission was an inadvertent oversight and did not affect its entitlement to relief, as it held other registrations in Classes 20 and 35. However, the defendants argued that those registrations were irrelevant to footwear and the apology only compounded the dishonesty.
Judgment Excerpts
This Court had, on 30th June, 2025, passed an ex parte ad interim Order inter alia restraining the Defendants from using the trade mark “DOCTOR HEALTH SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR SUPER SOFT/ DOCTOR EXTRA SOFT” in relation to the sale of footwear.
the Plaintiff had suppressed the fact that (I) the Plaintiff's trade mark registration in Class 25 contained a specific limitation/disclaimer that the said registration was exclusive only to the State of Maharashtra, (II) Back in December 2024, the Defendant No. 1 had produced evidence of user of the impugned trade mark since April 2022, and (III) the Plaintiff had, in the course of its registration in Class 25, taken a diametrically opposite stand from the stand taken in the present Suit.
the Plaintiff had in paragraph 30 of the Plaint, made a false statement by stating that the Plaintiff had become aware of the Defendants’ use of the impugned mark only on 6 th March 2025.
Procedural History
Commercial Suit (L) No. 18197 of 2025 filed along with Interim Application (L) No. 18278 of 2025. On 30.06.2025, the Court passed an ex parte ad interim order granting injunction. Defendants were served and filed an affidavit under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation. Arguments were heard on 30.09.2025, and judgment was reserved and pronounced on 15.10.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XXXIX Rule 4
- Trade Marks Act, 1999:
