Plaintiff: M/s ME Testing Laboratory (METL) — Jaipur-based, ISO-certified laboratory. Plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark “ME Testing Laboratory (METL)” (TM Application No. 4171418, Class 42) and sought permanent injunction, delivery up, rendition of accounts, and damages against the defendant.

Defendant: M/s M.E. Technology — Jodhpur-based, NABL-accredited laboratory. Defendant stated it independently adopted the name “M.E. Technology” in 2016 (derived from “Madan Engineering Technology”) and denied any authorization or connection with the plaintiff.

Both parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 29 May 2017, under which M.E. Technology acted as a Quality Consultant. The MoU was valid for two years and expired on 29 May 2019.

• Trademark Ownership & Use: Plaintiff claimed to be the original adopter and continuous user of the “ME” mark since 2011, asserting extensive goodwill and reputation.
• Registration: Registered the device mark “ME TESTING LABORATORY WITH DEVICE OF METL” (Application No. 4171418 in Class 42).
• Alleged Infringement: In March 2020, plaintiff alleged defendant continued operating under “M.E. Technology” (post-MoU) causing confusion and infringing plaintiff’s mark. Plaintiff served a legal notice dated 16 Dec 2020.
• Relief Sought: Permanent injunction, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up of infringing material, and other equitable reliefs.

• Prior Independent Use: Defendant stated it began offering services under the name M.E. Technology since 2016 (proprietor started freelancing in 2013–14 and formalized as a firm in 2016).
• Evidence of Business: Defendant provided proof — ICICI Bank account opened on 06.02.2016, NABL accreditation, and ongoing business in Rajasthan.
• MoU Nature: The 2017 MoU was on a principal-to-principal basis (outsourcing/consultancy), not a trademark license.
• Alleged Malafide Conduct by Plaintiff: Defendant alleged plaintiff concealed the MoU and prior dealings, later issuing a false notice (16.12.2020) to harm its business. Defendant replied on 05.01.2021.
• Distinctiveness: Defendant maintained that its mark and name were unique and not confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s mark.

• No credible proof of prior use: Plaintiff’s trademark application itself stated use from 17.09.2018 (applied 20.01.2021); no evidence of earlier use produced.
• Plaintiff aware since 2017: The MoU (29.05.2017) identified both parties’ names — claim of discovery in 2020 was false.
• Inconsistent / misleading evidence: Plaintiff presented a 2010 registration in another person’s name (Vijender Kumar), not current proprietor (Jitendra Yadav), without proof of transfer.
• Suppression & misrepresentation: Plaintiff concealed facts, gave inconsistent statements (including turnover figures and use dates), and misled both the Registry and Court.
• Doctrine of clean hands: The Court held that concealment of material facts disentitles equitable relief.

• M/s M.E. Technology held as the prior and continuous user of the mark “M.E.”
• Plaintiff failed to prove prior or permissive use under the MoU.
• Suit dismissed for concealment and lack of credible evidence.
• No penalty imposed (noting defendant’s absence at later hearings).

• Prior user rights prevail over later registrations where credible evidence of earlier use exists.
• Concealment of facts or inconsistencies can lead to dismissal under the clean-hands doctrine.
• Documentary proof (MoUs, bank records, certificates, invoices) and consistent pleadings are critical in IP suits.
• Frivolous or deceptive litigation may be treated as abuse of process.

The Commercial Court concluded that M.E. Technology was the prior, bona fide user of the “M.E.” mark. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed for concealment, misrepresentation, and lack of credible evidence.