Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief To Minco India Against Group Company Over 'MINCO' Mark

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Minco India Private Limited in a trademark dispute over the use of the word “MINCO”. The court held that the company had suppressed material facts and had allowed the rival firm to use the name since at least 2012 without objection.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh dismissed an interim application seeking to restrain Minco India Flow Elements Private Limited from using “MINCO” as part of its trade name.

The court found that the claim of having discovered the use only in 2024 was prima facie false and that equitable relief could not be granted to a party that had not approached the court with clean hands.

The court observed, “Prima facie there is honest adoption of the mark by the Defendant as part of its trade name. There was no action initiated by the Plaintiff despite being aware of change of trade name way back in the year 2015.”

The dispute concerns the use of “MINCO,” a trade name, by two companies engaged in the manufacture of industrial instruments such as gauges and pressure and temperature measuring equipment.

Minco India Private Limited claimed it has used the mark “MINCO INDIA” since 1982 and obtained trademark registration in 2023 with a user claim dating back to that year. It alleged that it became aware only in February 2024 that Minco India Flow was manufacturing and supplying similar products using “MINCO,” which, it said, led to confusion in the market and infringed its registered mark.

Minco India Flow, however, disputed this account, stating that it has used “MINCO” as part of its trade name since 2012, following a name change from Tivim Instruments Company Private Limited.

The company placed board resolutions and official records before the court to show that the change in name was not done quietly or without consent. According to these documents, Minco India itself had given a no-objection for the use of “MINCO” in the other company's name.

The court also pointed to the close links between the two sides. Both companies were set up by members of the same family, operated within the same business group, and shared directors for several years. In fact, a director of Minco India remained on the board of Minco India Flow even after the name change, which, the court said, showed that Minco India knew about the use of “MINCO”.

Against this background, the court was not persuaded by the claim that Minco India discovered the other company's activities only in 2024.

The failure to disclose the shared history, common directors, consent for the name change, and long-standing knowledge of the defendant's business amounted to suppression of material facts.

“The principles of equity and balance of convenience rules against the grant of interim relief in favour of the Plaintiff who has prima facie made false statements on oath and suppressed material facts,” the court said.

The court also took note of the  Minco Flow's long-standing business operations, observing that Minco India Flow has openly used “MINCO” as part of its trade name since 2012 and has built a substantial business during this period.

The court said the scales clearly tilted in favour of letting the company continue using its trade name for now, especially given how long the name had been in use.

It was also not convinced by the passing-off claim. The court noted that the products in question are specialised, custom-made industrial instruments, typically bought by experienced industrial customers. At this stage, the court said, there was nothing to suggest that such buyers were likely to be misled.

In the absence of a strong prima facie case, any real balance of convenience, or equitable grounds, the court declined to step in and dismissed the interim application.