Delhi Commercial Court Dismisses ‘ME’ Trademark Suit For Concealment Of Facts, Finds Defendant Prior User Of Mark
Pranav B Prem
A Delhi Commercial Court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by ME Testing Laboratory against ME Technology, observing that the plaintiff had concealed material facts and failed to establish prior use of the “ME” mark. The order was passed by District Judge Savita Rao at the Commercial Court, Saket, who found that the action lacked merit and was instituted on frivolous grounds.
Background
The plaintiff, ME Testing Laboratory (METL), a Jaipur-based material testing company, claimed to be using the mark “ME” since 2011 and asserted that it had obtained registration of the mark under Class 42 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company alleged that through continuous use, the mark had acquired significant goodwill in the field of testing and quality analysis. According to the plaint, in 2017, ME Testing Laboratory entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ME Technology, a Jodhpur-based engineering and testing consultancy, under which ME Technology was appointed as a quality consultant for two years. The MoU expired in 2019. The plaintiff alleged that despite the expiry of the MoU, the defendant continued to operate using the name “ME Technology,” thereby causing confusion among consumers and infringing the registered mark of the plaintiff.
Defendant’s Stand
In response, ME Technology denied the allegations and contended that the plaintiff had concealed material facts and misrepresented the nature of their prior dealings. The defendant asserted that it had independently coined the name “M.E. Technology” in 2016, derived from “Madan Engineering Technology,” a name chosen in honor of the founder’s father. It was submitted that ME Technology had been carrying on its business since 2016 and had developed its own clientele and reputation across Rajasthan. The defendant further argued that the MoU between the parties itself proved that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s name and operations since 2017, and therefore, the claim that the use of the “ME” name was discovered only in 2020 was false.
Findings of the Court
After examining the documents and submissions, the court found that ME Testing Laboratory failed to establish prior user of the mark “ME”. The court observed that the MoU dated 2017 clearly indicated that the plaintiff was aware of the defendant’s trade name and business at that time. Hence, the subsequent claim of discovering the use of the “ME” name only in 2020 was incorrect and misleading. Judge Savita Rao held: “The 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 a period of two 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 the date of entering into the MoU with the defendant. Thereby, the defendant rather seems to be the prior user of the trade name ‘M.E.’ than the plaintiff.”
The court also noted that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts and attempted to mislead the court by concealing the prior association and awareness of the defendant’s business activities. Such conduct, the court said, amounted to abuse of the process of law.
In view of these findings, the court dismissed the suit filed by ME Testing Laboratory, holding that ME Technology appeared to be the prior user of the “ME” mark. The judge concluded that the plaintiff had not approached the court with clean hands and had failed to substantiate its claims through credible evidence or documents.
Appearance
For the Plaintiff: Ms. Varnika Bajaj, Adv.
Cause Title: M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) v. M/s M.E. Technology
Case No: CS (Comm) No.: 126/23
Coram: Savita Rao (District Judge)
