‘Three times is enemy action’: Delhi High Court vacates trademark injunction over suppression of material facts

The Delhi High Court has vacated an ex parte injunction against Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals after finding that Celagenex Research had failed to disclose material facts concerning its dispute over the trademarks NUREWIRE and RewireX.

In a strongly worded judgment, a Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held that Celagenex had suppressed a cease-and-desist notice and subsequent opposition proceedings when seeking urgent relief against Nugenesys.

The court also found what it described as a persistent pattern of suppression and non-disclosure in at least three suits filed by the same counsel, prompting it to invoke a famous line from Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger.

“Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action,” the court observed, adding that a repeated event could no longer be treated as random but indicated deliberate conduct.

Dispute over NUREWIRE and RewireX

The dispute concerned two pharmaceutical companies operating in the nutraceutical sector.

Celagenex is the proprietor of the registered NUREWIRE trademark in Class 5, registered in June 2020. Nugenesys subsequently adopted the RewireX mark and filed an application for registration in Class 5 on March 6, 2025.

Nugenesys began commercially launching products bearing the RewireX mark in March 2026.

Celagenex subsequently brought proceedings before the Delhi High Court and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction on May 20, 2026. A Local Commissioner was also appointed in connection with the order.

However, the Division Bench found that Celagenex had known about Nugenesys’ adoption of RewireX considerably earlier than it suggested in its suit.

On October 29, 2025, Celagenex had sent Nugenesys a cease-and-desist notice objecting to the RewireX application and calling for the mark to be withdrawn.

Celagenex then filed an opposition to Nugenesys’ trademark application before the Registrar of Trademarks on January 27, 2026.

Neither development was disclosed in the plaint filed when Celagenex later sought the ex parte injunction.

Court finds suppression was material

The court rejected the argument that the earlier correspondence and opposition were irrelevant because Nugenesys’ products had only entered the market in March 2026.

The Bench noted that Celagenex’s own October 2025 notice demonstrated that it was already aware of the adoption of the RewireX mark.

It held that Celagenex should have disclosed the notice and opposition immediately after pleading that Nugenesys had filed its trademark application.

The court also found that Celagenex had obtained an exemption from pre-institution mediation after failing to disclose that it had already been aware of the alleged infringement.

According to the judgment, this amounted to suppression of material facts.

The Bench emphasized that parties seeking equitable relief, particularly ex parte relief, must approach the court with “total clarity and candor” and complete good faith.

It concluded that where suppression by a plaintiff seeking an ex parte injunction is established, the appropriate consequence is not merely to reconsider the injunction, but to dismiss the interim application itself.

“Given the proven conduct of the Respondent in withholding a material and relevant fact,” the court held, the ex parte injunction should be vacated and the interim injunction application dismissed.

‘Persistent pattern’ of suppression

The court’s criticism extended beyond the individual proceedings.

After examining the circumstances of the Nugenesys dispute alongside two earlier trademark suits, the Bench said there appeared to be a “persistent pattern of suppression and non-disclosure” by the same filing counsel.

According to the judgment, the three cases demonstrated a pattern in which the date on which the cause of action first arose was allegedly not disclosed accurately, with the effect of supporting applications for ad interim ex parte relief.

The Bench warned that overlooking the conduct in the present case could encourage further pleadings suffering from suppression and misrepresentation.

The court therefore concluded that the injunction had to be vacated to uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

The judgment’s reference to Fleming’s Goldfinger underlined the court’s view that the repeated conduct could not simply be dismissed as an isolated oversight. Bar & Bench separately reported the court’s James Bond reference in connection with the case.

Injunction vacated and products released

The Delhi High Court also rejected the argument that an overriding public interest justified continuing the injunction.

It noted that Nugenesys’ products were being manufactured through an entity holding an FSSAI license and that there was no prima facie evidence that the products were substandard or posed a risk to public health or safety.

The court further noted that the rival trade dresses had already been found not to be similar and that, should Celagenex ultimately succeed at trial, damages could provide an appropriate remedy.

The May 20, 2026, ex parte order was therefore vacated, and the connected interim injunction application was dismissed.

The products seized pursuant to the earlier proceedings were ordered to be released, with Nugenesys permitted to dispose of them.

INR 200,000 costs

The court also imposed costs of INR 200,000 on Celagenex.

It stressed that the company itself bore responsibility for the non-disclosure because it had signed the Statement of Truth accompanying the plaint, thereby affirming that its pleadings and documents constituted a full, true and complete disclosure of material facts.

Celagenex was directed to deposit the INR 200,000 with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

The decision provides a significant warning for trademark owners seeking urgent ex parte relief: the failure to disclose earlier correspondence, trademark proceedings or other material developments can have consequences extending beyond the loss of the interim injunction.

For trademark litigants, the judgment underlines the importance of providing courts with a complete chronology of the dispute when seeking equitable and particularly ex parte remedies.

← Back to News