Full disclosure and prior user rights can defeat interim trademark injunctions despite later registration.

A party seeking ex parte interim injunction must make full and candid disclosure of all material facts and documents, and suppression of stockist agreements and the true commercial relationship justified refusal of equitable relief. The decision also states that a registered proprietor cannot restrain a prior and continuous user of the same or a closely similar mark at the interlocutory stage merely by relying on registration, because vested rights and prior adoption remain protected. On that reasoning, the interim injunction was vacated, while the suit was left to proceed on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether suppression of the stockist agreements and the true relationship between the parties disentitled the plaintiff to interim injunction relief. (ii) Whether the defendant, as a prior user of the mark and trade name, was entitled to continue use notwithstanding the plaintiff's registration.

Issue (i): Whether suppression of the stockist agreements and the true relationship between the parties disentitled the plaintiff to interim injunction relief.

Analysis: The plaintiff had sought ex parte protection without disclosing written stockist agreements showing that it had acted as an authorised stockist of the defendant and had dealt with the goods on the defendant's terms. Non-disclosure of a material document and of the actual commercial relationship was treated as concealment relevant to the exercise of equitable discretion in injunction matters. In such circumstances, a party seeking interim relief must make full and candid disclosure, and the court may refuse or vacate injunction without entering into the merits.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was disentitled to continuation of the interim injunction on account of suppression of material facts.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendant, as a prior user of the mark and trade name, was entitled to continue use notwithstanding the plaintiff's registration.

Analysis: The material on record showed prior adoption and continuous use of the name and mark by the defendant, while the plaintiff's evidence of prior use was weak and unsupported by contemporaneous documents. Registration did not by itself defeat the defendant's prior and continuous user, and the saving of vested rights protected such prior use. The defendant's business name and mark were also treated as a distinctive commercial identifier capable of protection against interference by a later registrant.

Conclusion: The defendant's prior user right prevailed, and the registered mark did not justify restraining its use at the interlocutory stage.

Final Conclusion: The interim injunction was vacated and the interlocutory applications were disposed of, while the suit was left to proceed on the merits with directions for accounts and public notice.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking ex parte interim injunction must disclose all material facts and documents, and a registered proprietor cannot restrain a prior continuous user of an identical or closely similar mark at the interlocutory stage merely on the basis of registration.

---