Justice on Pause: When Neither Party Deserves Interim Relief

Pari Malhotra
20 hours ago
4 min read

Introduction

The case of Velji Karamshi Vaid v. V3 Fashion and Others^[1] stands out as a firm reiteration by the Bombay High Court that equitable relief is not a matter of right but is contingent upon the claimant's honesty and transparency. In this recent ruling, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction, not because of the substantive strength or weakness of the trademark infringement allegations, but due to both parties' failure to maintain integrity and consistency in their pleadings. This judgment reinforces a critical legal principle: courts will not extend equitable remedies to litigants who distort or withhold material facts.

Facts of the case

The Plaintiff, approached the Court claiming sole rights over the trademarks "V3" and "Volume 3" used in relation to garments. They stated that garments bearing these marks were used for sale in India as well as for exporting. On the other hand, the Defendants Nos. 1–6 were running businesses in the same building as the Plaintiffs under names such as “V3 Fashion” and “V3 Style.” Defendant No. 7 had also earlier applied for registration of a similar mark, which was refused. Based on an amicable resolution, Defendant No. 7 had discontinued use of its mark, “V3”. However, Defendants Nos. 1-6 were using various documents such as invoices, challans, licenses, in the name of Defendant No.7. The Defendants countered by asserting they had adopted and used the marks prior to the Plaintiff, dating their usage back to 2017. Upon review, however, the Court noted discrepancies in the Plaintiff’s claims. Though the Plaintiff stated in its plaint that he had been using the marks since 2016, his 2018 trademark application marked the status as "proposed to be used", and yet another date surfaced in the trademark examination report, further complicating his position. Additionally, the Plaintiff had earlier argued before the Trademark Registry that similar marks were not misleading, making it a claim in direct contradiction to his position in Court. However, the Defendants were also not free from fault. Their evidence of prior use which was largely dependent on certain invoices was challenged by a former associate, who accused them of fabricating documents and misusing their GST credentials. These allegations were left unaddressed, casting serious doubts on their defense as well.

Arguments

The Plaintiff sought interim protection against the alleged infringement, asserting established use and public association with his trademarks. However, the inconsistencies in his stated timelines and contradictory submissions in previous legal proceedings weakened the Plaintiff’s position. The Defendant, meanwhile, relied on documents to claim prior use, but the legitimacy of these documents was questioned due to allegations of forgery and unauthorized use. Both sides were essentially seeking the Court’s equitable intervention through an interim injunction, yet neither maintained the level of candor and consistency required for such relief.

Court’s Decision and Analysis

The Court categorically refused to grant interim relief to either party, emphasizing that such remedies are discretionary and rooted in equitable principles. It observed that both the Plaintiff and the Defendant had approached the Court with tainted records and questionable credibility. The Plaintiff’s shifting claims, coupled with his failure to disclose earlier contradictory positions, amounted to suppression of material facts. On the other hand, the defense failed to convincingly respond to allegations regarding the authenticity of its documentary evidence. Citing precedents from the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the legal maxim that equitable relief is not available to those who do not come with clean hands.

The Court observed that “It is well settled that a person who seeks equity must do equity. The Plaintiff cannot make misleading statements on oath and suppress facts and expect grant of interim relief by reason of varying stands adopted by the Defendant Nos 1 to 6 in their reply and the rectification application. The Plaintiffs are prima facie guilty of the same conduct, as that alleged of Defendant Nos 1 to 6. In the case of Ramjas Foundation vs. Union of India (supra) and Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Shubham 24 of 25 IAL-22614-2022-Final.doc Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated well settled principles of law that the person who does not come to Court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits of the grievance”.

As a result, the application for injunction was dismissed.

Conclusion

This decision highlights the judiciary’s unwillingness to assist parties who attempt to manipulate legal proceedings by concealing facts or presenting inconsistent narratives. By denying interim protection to both sides, the Court made it clear that equitable relief is not just about asserting legal rights, rather, it also depends on the moral integrity with which a litigant presents their case. In doing so, the Bombay High Court underscored a vital message for all participants in trademark disputes: honesty, consistency, and full disclosure are non-negotiable. Here, the Court rightly withheld relief, sending a strong message that procedural misconduct will not be tolerated, even in urgent matters seeking interim relief.