Delhi Court Dismisses Trademark Infringement Suit Over Concealment Of Material Facts & Failure To Prove Prior Use

The order was passed by District Judge Savita Rao at the Commercial Court in Saket, who found that the case lacked merit and appeared to have been filed on frivolous grounds.

According to the Court filings, ME Testing Laboratory, based in Jaipur, is engaged in material testing and claimed to have used the name “ME Testing Laboratory (METL)” since 2011. The company stated that it holds a trademark registration under Class 42 and that the mark has gained goodwill through continuous use.

In 2017, ME Testing Laboratory entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ME Technology, a Jodhpur-based engineering and testing consultancy, appointing it as a quality consultant for two years and the said agreement expired in 2019.

ME Laboratory alleged that ME Technology continued to offer testing services under a deceptively similar name even after the MoU ended. It claimed that this caused confusion among clients and amounted to infringement of its registered mark.

On the other hand, ME Technology stated that it had independently coined the name “M.E. Technology” in 2016, derived from “Madan Engineering Technology,” named after the founder's father. The company said it had been operating under this name since 2016 and had developed its own business reputation and client base in Rajasthan.

ME Technology denied having any authorization or connection with ME Testing Laboratory and accused the latter of initiating false proceedings for commercial advantage.

After examining the documents and submissions, the court held that ME Testing Laboratory could not establish prior use of the “ME” mark.

The court also noted that the MoU signed in 2017 clearly showed that ME Testing Laboratory was aware of ME Technology's name and business operations at that time. Therefore, the later claim that the use of the “ME” name was discovered only in 2020 was found to be untrue.

The court said - “plaintiff has failed to establish on record its claim of prior user or that the defendant was permissive user of the trademark /trade name of the plaintiff for period of 2 years by virtue of the MOU. It is also apparent that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant's trade name and business activities as on date of entering into the MOU with defendant. Thereby defendant rather seems to be prior user of the trade name "M.E." than plaintiff.”

The judge added that ME Testing Laboratory had suppressed relevant facts and misrepresented information before the court amounting to an abuse of legal process.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit and held that ME Technology appeared to be the prior user of the mark “ME.” It also observed that ME Testing Laboratory had not approached the court with clean hands and failed to substantiate its claims through credible evidence.

Case Title: M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) v. M/s M.E. Technology

Case No.: CS (Comm) No.: 126/23

Appearance: For the Plaintiff: Ms. Varnika Bajaj, Adv.