Injunction in V3 Trademark Dispute Denied Over Unclean Hands

Summary

The Bombay High Court examined a trademark infringement and passing off suit between Velji Karamshi Vaid and Another, and Defendants operating similar businesses under the “V3” mark. Both parties made contradictory claims regarding prior use, with Plaintiffs misstating dates and Defendants presenting fabricated documents. The Court found neither side credible, noting suppressed material facts and weak evidence of goodwill. Citing Supreme Court precedents, it ruled that parties lacking clean hands are not entitled to equitable relief. Consequently, the Plaintiffs’ application for interim injunction was dismissed.

Factual Background

The Plaintiffs Velji Karamshi Vaid and Avani Apparels, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of garments, claimed statutory and common law rights over their brands “V3” and “Volume 3.” They stated that garments bearing these marks, were used for sale in India as well as for exporting.

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. Aggrieved by the action of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs instituted a suit alleging infringement of trademarks and copyright, as well as passing off.

Defendants’ Contentions

• • They were prior users of their marks since 2017, coining “V3” from a partner’s initial and the number of partners.
  • Plaintiffs could not claim exclusivity over the expression “V3,” which was part of a larger device mark.
  • Their marks were visually and structurally different, avoiding consumer confusion.
  • Plaintiffs had suppressed material facts, including inconsistencies in their claimed dates of use.
  • Defendants also asserted stronger commercial performance and brand investments.

Plaintiffs’ Response

• • Defendants were unregistered users of deceptively similar marks.
  • They had taken contradictory positions – denying similarity before the Court while admitting likelihood of confusion in rectification proceedings.
  • Invoices and documents relied upon by the Defendants Nos. 1-6 were fabricated, showing use of Defendant No. 7’s GST number and business details, which was already ceased.

Court’s Analysis

• • Both sides lacked credibility:
    • Plaintiffs misstated dates of first use and suppressed their own admissions before the Trade Marks Registry.
    • Defendants relied on questionable invoices and inconsistent pleadings.
  • Plaintiffs’ evidence of goodwill and reputation was weak and they did not produce any reliable sales or promotional data.
  • Defendants’ claim of prior use was unsupported by trustworthy documents.
  • Since both parties adopted shifting and dishonest positions, the Court held that no prima facie case for interim relief was made out.

Decision

The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ interim application for injunction. Both sides had suppressed material facts and made contradictory submissions. While the Plaintiffs misstated their dates of user and prior statements before the Trade Marks Registry, the Defendants relied on fabricated documents  for their claims of prior use.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India and Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held that parties who do not come with clean hands are not entitled to equitable or discretionary relief, nor even to be heard on the merits of their grievance.

Citation: Velji Karamshi Vaid And Anr vs V3 Fashion And 6 Ors, [INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 22614 OF 2022], Bombay High Court on 9 September, 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39152091/

Article Review: Ms. Ashwini Arun