Nugenesys v. Celagenex: Delhi HC Vacates Ex-Parte Injunction

Factual Matrix

Looking to understand Trademark Law better? Read our complete Trademark Law Guide.

The dispute in Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (FAO(OS) (COMM)-167/2026) involves two entities operating in the nutraceutical sector. The Respondent, Celagenex Research (India) Pvt. Ltd., is the proprietor of the registered trademark “NUREWIRE” (Trademark No. 4525594), registered in Class 5 on June 9, 2020. The Appellant, Nugenesys Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Taibachem Healthcare Private Limited), is headed by Appellant No. 2, who previously served as a founding director and significant shareholder of the Respondent company until his resignation in October 2024.

In March 2025, the Appellants filed for the registration of the trademark “RewireX” (Trademark No. 6892520) in Class 5. Commercially, the Appellants launched products under this brand in March 2026. The Respondent filed an ex-parte suit for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the “RewireX” mark and the associated trade dress were deceptively similar to its “NUREWIRE” mark. Following an ex-parte hearing in May 2026, the learned Single Judge granted an ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to verify the infringing stock.

Crucially, the record reveals that the Respondent had previously issued a cease-and-desist notice on October 29, 2025, and subsequently filed formal objections with the Registrar of Trade Marks on January 27, 2026, against the Appellants’ application for “RewireX”. These facts, specifically the Respondent’s knowledge of the trademark application and the Appellants’ corporate identity as early as October 2025, were not disclosed in the plaint. Instead, the Respondent asserted that its knowledge of the infringing goods arose only in May 2026. The Appellants challenged the resulting ex-parte injunction before the Division Bench, alleging suppression of material facts and procedural irregularities.

Applicable Law & Statutory Provisions

The dispute invokes several key procedural and substantive provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015:

• Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC: This provision mandates that a court must record specific reasons for granting an injunction without issuing prior notice to the opposite party. It is designed to ensure that ex-parte orders are the exception rather than the rule.
• Order XXXIX Rule 3A of the CPC: This rule stipulates that when a court grants an ex-parte injunction, it must endeavor to dispose of the injunction application within thirty days, and if not possible, record the reasons for the failure to do so.
• Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015: This section mandates pre-institution mediation in commercial suits where no urgent interim relief is contemplated. It ensures that parties explore settlement avenues before invoking the jurisdiction of the court.
• Statement of Truth (Commercial Courts Act): The requirement to verify pleadings via a statement of truth casts a duty on the plaintiff to disclose all material facts and documents. Failure to do so constitutes a direct violation of the duty of candor owed to the court.
• Section 151 of the CPC: This provision preserves the inherent powers of the court to make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, particularly in cases of suppression of material facts.

Judicial Analysis

The Delhi High Court, led by the Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, performed an incisive analysis of the Respondent’s conduct. The Court emphasized that a party approaching the court for ex-parte relief has an obligation of uberrima fides, the requirement of utmost good faith.

Suppression of Material Facts

The Court found that the Respondent’s omission to disclose the October 2025 cease-and-desist notice and the January 2026 opposition to the trademark application was a wilful act. By asserting in the plaint that the cause of action arose only in May 2026 upon discovering the “RewireX” products, the Respondent actively misled the court. The Division Bench rejected the Respondent’s argument that this omission was an “oversight” or “immaterial.” The Court held that the date of knowledge is a cornerstone for assessing the urgency required to justify an ex-parte order. Because the Respondent had known of the Appellants’ application for months, the urgency to bypass notice to the Appellants was entirely manufactured.

Procedural Violations

The High Court scrutinized the learned Single Judge’s compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC. The Bench noted that the impugned order failed to articulate the specific reasons that necessitated dispensing with the requirement of notice. In commercial litigation, where the defendant has a known business presence, the courts must be cautious. The Division Bench cited the principle established in Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, which dictates that if the defendant’s business is already operational, notice should be issued unless immediate and irreparable harm is imminent. The Respondent’s success in obtaining an ex-parte order effectively bypassed these safeguards, leading to reputational and commercial prejudice for the Appellants.

The Duty of Candor

Drawing on the seminal authority of R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner, the Division Bench reiterated that any party who fails to make a full and frank disclosure when seeking ex-parte relief risks having the order vacated, regardless of the merits of the underlying dispute. The Court noted that the Respondent’s attempt to hide these documents within a bulk index under an obscure description did not satisfy the duty of disclosure. The Bench underscored that the court’s discretion to grant an injunction is an equitable power, and an applicant who pollutes the “pure stream of justice” with misleading pleadings forfeits the right to such discretionary relief.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Returns ITC Plaint for Skipping Section 12A Mediation

Practical and Commercial Implications

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to legal practitioners and corporate litigants that the threshold for obtaining ex-parte ad-interim relief in the Delhi High Court remains strictly tethered to the principle of full disclosure. The following implications emerge from this judgment:

• Vulnerability of Ex-Parte Orders: Any ex-parte injunction obtained through the suppression of prior correspondence or legal notices is inherently fragile. The appellate courts will prioritize the conduct of the plaintiff over the potential merits of the trademark infringement claim when suppression is established.
• Mandatory Disclosure in Pleadings: The decision reinforces that “oversight” regarding the exclusion of prior notices or legal objections in a plaint is not a valid defense. Practitioners must ensure that all pre-litigation correspondence, including cease-and-desist notices, are explicitly pleaded and documented in the list of dates and the body of the plaint.
• The “Urgency” Requirement: Courts are increasingly skeptical of “manufactured urgency.” When a company monitors its brand portfolio and issues legal notices, it cannot subsequently plead total ignorance of the defendant’s activities to satisfy the criteria for ex-parte intervention. Such contradictions are easily exposed by defendants during appellate scrutiny.
• Risk of Reputational Damage: The case illustrates the danger of aggressive litigation tactics. By securing an ex-parte order and communicating it to third-party distributors and retailers, the Respondent caused significant, and potentially unrecoverable, damage to the Appellants’ business chain. When such orders are subsequently vacated, the plaintiff faces the risk of being held accountable for the resulting loss of business and goodwill.

The Court’s decision to vacate the ex-parte injunction emphasizes that the integrity of the judicial process is paramount. While the court maintained the suit itself, the immediate consequence for the Respondent is the loss of the temporary protection it obtained by misleading the trial court. This judgment reinforces the standard that procedural compliance and honesty in pleading are not merely formal requirements, but fundamental components of the legal system that cannot be bypassed for commercial expediency.