Introduction
In the competitive landscape of modern commerce, where brand identity is paramount, a company’s trademark is its lifeblood. But what happens when the very pursuit to protect that identity becomes tainted by misrepresentation and the suppression of facts? Does a strong claim of infringement truly fall flat when the claimant’s hands are not clean? This complex legal question was recently addressed in the case of M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) Vs. M/s M.E. Technology1. The judgment serves as a stark reminder of the fundamental principle that those who approach the court must do so with unblemished honesty.
The plaintiff, initiated a suit for permanent injunction, seeking to restrain the defendant, M/s M.E. Technology, from counterfeiting and infringing upon its registered trademark. The core of the plaintiff’s argument was that it had coined and adopted the trademark “Me Testing Laboratory(METL)” since 2011, and that the defendant’s subsequent use of the labelmark “M.E. Technology” for similar services was deceptively similar and an act of passing off. The plaintiff claimed to have a registered trademark for “Me Testing Laboratory With Device Of METL”.
A Timeline of Deception: Unmasking the Plaintiff’s False User Claims
The dispute was far from a simple matter of trademark infringement, as it was significantly complicated by the plaintiff’s suppression of key facts regarding its business relationship with the defendant. Initially, the plaintiff claimed to have only “got wind” of the defendant’s similar services and use of the mark “M.E.” in March 2020. However, this assertion sharply contradicted the undisputed fact that the two parties had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2017. The defendant, in its defense, highlighted the MOU as proof that the plaintiff was well aware of the trade name “M.E. Technology” at least since 2017 and further asserted it was the original adopter and continuous user of the mark since at least 2016, a claim supported by an earlier bank account opening in that name in February 2016. Moreover, the plaintiff’s claim of being the first user since 2011 was undermined by its own trademark registration certificate, which indicated the user date as only September 17, 2018, and by the fact that its tax invoices and test reports were all subsequent to 2018. An attempt to substantiate an earlier user claim using a 2010 registration certificate also failed, as it named a different proprietor, forcing the plaintiff’s counsel to concede that the establishment was allegedly ‘bought’ in 2017—a vital detail that was neither pleaded nor documented. Ultimately, the court concluded that no inference of “permissive user” could be drawn from the 2017 MOU; instead, the evidence suggested the plaintiff was aware of and did not object to the defendant’s concurrent use, leading the court to believe the defendant seemed to be the prior user of the trade name “M.E.”
The ‘Clean Hands’ Doctrine
The case was ultimately determined not just on the technical merits of trademark law, but on the plaintiff’s conduct in litigation. The court found the plaintiff’s actions—namely, the suppression of the 2017 MOU in the legal notice and the furnishing of false information on record—to be a blatant abuse of the process of law.
This rationale finds strong support in established precedents from the Supreme Court of India, which underscores the imperative for honesty in all judicial forums. The judgment explicitly relied upon the principle of “Clean hands and non-suppression of material facts,” as laid down in cases such as:
Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors2.: This ruling emphasizes that “a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation”.
K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors3.: This case highlights that a party who does not come with “candid facts and ‘clean breast'” cannot hold a writ of the court with “‘soiled hands'”. It labels the suppression or concealment of material facts as a “jugglery, manipulation, maneuvering or misrepresentation” that has no place in equitable jurisdiction.
The Auroville Foundation Vs. Natasha Storey4: This case affirms that if a party is “guilty of suppression of material and relevant facts or has not come with clean hands, such conduct must be seriously viewed by the courts as the abuse of process of law and the petition must be dismissed on that ground alone without entering into the merits of the matter”.
Conclusion
In its final decision, the court observed that the filing of the suit, in light of the plaintiff’s attempt to conceal and misrepresent facts, was an “apparent abuse of process of law”. Consequently, the District Judge decided all issues against the plaintiff, and the suit was dismissed. While the court noted that the plaintiff’s conduct warranted the imposition of a penalty, it chose not to impose one because the defendant had also failed to appear for the final stages of the matter. The present case is a powerful affirmation that even in the face of a potentially legitimate dispute, a litigant’s failure to adhere to the fundamental ethics of candour can be the decisive factor that nullifies their entire claim..
Citations
- M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) Vs. M/s M.E. Technology CS (Comm) No. : 126/23
- Vishnu Vardhan @ Vishnu Pradhan Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2025 INSC 884
- K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors (2008) 12 SCC 481
- The Auroville Foundation Vs. Natasha Storey 2025 INSC 348
Expositor(s): Adv. Archana Shukla
