Failure to Disclose True Facts and Suppression of Material Information
Introduction: This case study examines how the High Court of Madras, in deciding an interlocutory application for interim injunction in a copyright infringement suit, analyzed the plaintiffs’ conduct, particularly their failure to disclose critical facts and inconsistencies in their pleadings. The judgment underscores that suppression or nondisclosure of material information by a plaintiff can significantly weaken a claim for equitable relief like an injunction, even where there is copyright registration in place.
Factual Background: The plaintiffs, Mrs. Preeti and Mr. Piyush Jain, trading as proprietors of cosmetic businesses under the brand “BEAUTE BLANC,” claimed to be the authors and copyright holders of an artistic work used in the packaging of their products. They obtained copyright registration no. A-130483/2019, which recorded the year of publication as 2014. They alleged that the defendants, Vijay Kumar Chopra and Cura Skin Solutions Pvt. Ltd., copied this packaging design for cosmetic products under the mark “NATUALLY.” To substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs placed on record multiple invoices dated from August 2018 onwards and chartered accountants’ certificates showing turnover figures from later financial years.
Procedural Background: The plaintiffs filed C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025 before the High Court of Madras, accompanied by O.A.No.183 of 2025 seeking an ad-interim injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, marketing or dealing in products bearing the impugned packaging. The defendants contested the application, challenging both the originality of the artistic work and the timeline of its alleged creation and use. The matter came up for decision before Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
Legal Issue: The central issue before the Court was whether the plaintiffs had established a sufficiently strong prima facie case for grant of interim injunction, particularly in view of serious questions raised about nondisclosure and suppression of facts material to the determination of copyright ownership and priority of use.
Discussion on Judgments :The plaintiffs relied primarily on Section 48 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides that particulars entered in the Register of Copyrights are to be treated as prima facie evidence. They also pointed to an earlier interim injunction granted on 13 February 2020 in O.A.Nos.947 to 949 of 2019 in C.S.No.609 of 2019, in respect of the same artistic work, where a similar defence had been rejected.
The defendants, challenging the credibility of the plaintiffs’ claim and highlighting suppression, cited Federation of Industries of India & another v. Mr. G. Kesavalu Naidu @ Kesavan & another, CS(OS) No.596 of 2007, particularly paragraphs 13 and 24, to argue that copyright registration by itself is insufficient without clear evidence of originality and authorship. They relied on Rediff.Com India Ltd. v. E-Eighteen.Com Ltd., MANU/DE/2202/2013, paragraph 53, to emphasize that proof of prior and independent creation is required beyond mere registration. In Glaxo Orthopedic U.K. Ltd. v. Samrat Pharma, MANU/DE/0257/1983, paragraphs 14 and 15, the Delhi High Court noted that copyright must be shown to subsist through evidence. Camlin Private Limited v. National Pencil Industries, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1083, paragraph 10, reinforced this view. Tech Plus Media Private Ltd. v. Jyoti Janda & others, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1819, paragraph 20, was cited to highlight that documentary proof of publication is essential. Finally, M/s. K.B. Hiralal & Sons v. M/s. Kumar Industries & another, 1985 Arbitration Law Reporter 265, paragraphs 9 and 11, reiterated that the presumption from registration is not conclusive and must be corroborated by facts.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: The court observed that while Section 48 of the Copyright Act does create a prima facie presumption of the particulars entered in the Register, this presumption is rebuttable. The plaintiffs claimed the artistic work was published in 2014, yet failed to place on record any concrete evidence of such publication. The invoices they produced dated only from August 2018 onwards, and the chartered accountants’ certificates disclosed turnover figures starting from the financial year 2017-18 for the second plaintiff and 2021-22 for the first plaintiff. This weakened their assertion of first use in 2014.
Critically, the Court noted that the plaintiffs’ pleadings did not fully and candidly disclose that they had already filed an opposition to the defendants’ trademark application on 1 August 2024, while simultaneously claiming in the plaint and supporting affidavit that they became aware of the defendants’ products only in December 2024. This inconsistency was regarded as suppression of a material fact directly relevant to the dispute.
Further, the defendants placed on record evidence showing third parties had been using similar packaging designs from as early as 2017, and produced screenshots from websites like Alibaba indicating that the packaging may have originated from manufacturers in China for distribution by a Hong Kong-based entity. The plaintiffs failed to counter this evidence with proof demonstrating that their creation and use predated that of the defendants or the third parties.
In light of these factors, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a strong prima facie case, that there was suppression of material facts which affected the equitable relief sought, and that the balance of convenience did not favour granting an interim injunction.
Final Decision:The Court declined to grant the ad-interim injunction sought by the plaintiffs due to the failure to disclose true facts and suppression of material information that went to the root of the plaintiffs’ claim. The application was disposed of with a direction to the defendants to file quarterly accounts of sales pending the suit.
Law Settled in This Case: The judgment reiterates that copyright registration under Section 48 of the Copyright Act creates only a rebuttable presumption and does not replace the requirement to prove authorship, originality, and prior publication with credible, independent evidence. It affirms that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief must come to court with clean hands; suppression or failure to candidly disclose material facts, especially facts central to the claim, can defeat the plea for interim injunction even in intellectual property disputes.
Case Title: Mrs. Preeti Vs Vijay Kumar Chopra :Date of Order: 23 June 2025:Case Number: O.A.No.183 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.57 of 2025:Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras:Name of Judge: Hon'ble Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
