Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia — Trademark Case Law

Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90, Supreme Court of India, decided 22 January 2004.

Midas Hygiene sold an insecticide under the mark LAXMAN REKHA and claimed prior and prominent use of it. The respondents began selling a similar product as MAGIC LAXMAN REKHA. Midas sued for infringement of trademark and copyright.

A single judge of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction. The Division Bench set it aside, not because the case on infringement was weak, but because Midas had delayed in bringing the suit.

The Supreme Court restored the injunction. It held that in cases of infringement of a trademark or of copyright, an injunction must normally follow, and that mere delay in bringing the action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of an injunction in such cases.

The Division Bench had noted the factors the single judge relied on and then vacated the injunction on delay alone. The Supreme Court held that it was wrong to do so.

This is the authority to cite when the other side's main defence to an interim injunction is that you took too long to sue. Delay is relevant to the court's discretion, but on its own it does not displace a clear case of infringement, because the injury of continued confusion falls on the public as well as on you.

It does not make delay harmless. Prolonged, unexplained inaction can still support arguments of acquiescence, and the safest course is always to act as soon as you learn of the infringing use. Where a defendant has built a business with your knowledge and consent over years, the analysis can change.

For the principles courts apply at the interim stage more generally, see Wander Ltd v. Antox India, and for how infringement differs from passing off, see infringement vs passing off.

Key takeaway: Where infringement is made out, an injunction should normally follow. Delay alone is not a reason to refuse it.