Principles governing grant of anti-suit injunctions

In the matter of RAAJ UNOCAL Lubricants Ltd. Vs. Apple Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 25.05.2021

Facts of the case-

Plaintiff had been established in technical collaboration with Union Oil Company of California (UNOCAL) wherein vide MOU dated 03.06.1991, IPR rights in respect of trademarks “UNOCAL” “UNOCAL 76” and “76” were vested in the plaintiff for usage in India. Plaintiff applied for registration of the said trademarks in India which was opposed by the D/f No. 2.
D/f No. 2 also initiated a complaint in the Texas Court against the plaintiff herein, claiming to be the successor-in-interest of UNOCAL in respect of usage of “76” marks in the US and alleged that he is aggrieved of the usage by the plaintiff herein, of the marks which were similar to the “76 marks” to target the US market through its website and social media pages and prayed inter alia before the Texas Court that the plaintiff be preliminary and permanently enjoined from using the 76 marks.
The plaintiff subsequently filed an application before the High Court of Delhi for grant of anti-injunction, wherein the Court vide its order dated 08.03.2021 granted ex parte ad interim injunction to the plaintiff. The defendants thereafter filed present application under O39 R4 CPC seeking vacation of the said order.

Observations of the Court-

While recognizing the limitations of the Courts in granting anti-suit injunctions, the Delhi High Court observed that ‘anti-suit injunctions interfere with the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court in another sovereign territory to which the jurisdiction of the injuncting Court does not extend. Courts in India cannot grant injunctions to protect their citizens from orders passed by Courts in other sovereign territories. If a Court, in another sovereign territory, is passing an order which affects an Indian citizen in India, it is essentially for that citizen to take up the matter with the Court which has passed, or is likely to pass, such an order. It is neither possible, nor permissible, for the Court to assume the role of a watchdog, protecting each citizen from orders passed by foreign Courts.’
Explaining the concept of the ‘anti-suit injunction’, the Court noted that ‘Anti-suit injunctions are granted to bring to a halt the prosecution, by one or the other party before the Indian Courts, of the proceedings pending in a foreign Court. It is axiomatic that a court in one sovereign jurisdiction, cannot stay proceedings pending before a Court in another sovereign jurisdiction for the simple reason that courts do not possess appellate or supervisory powers across political boundaries. An anti-suit injunction, therefore, does not stay proceedings before the foreign Court, but merely restrains the party, before the Indian Court, from prosecuting, or continuing to prosecute, the proceedings before the foreign Court. It is a directive to the party before the Indian Court, over which the Indian Court possesses jurisdiction, and not a direction to the foreign Court, or even a direct interference with the continuance of the proceedings before the foreign Court.
Interference with proceedings pending before a foreign Court, in another sovereign jurisdiction, is obviously to be avoided if possible; which is why anti-suit injunctions are to be granted only in the rarest of rare cases.’
Placing reliance on the Hon’ble Apex Court’ judgment of O.N.G.C. v. Western Co. of North America; (1987) 1 SCC 496, the Court noted that the effect of the foreign proceeding has to be seen vis-à-vis the Indian proceedings and not vis-à-vis the Indian parties. If the continuance or outcome of the foreign proceedings, would be oppressive to the Indian proceedings, and the case set up by the opposite party in the Indian proceedings, only then an anti-suit injunction might be justified and not otherwise.
The issue that arose before the Court, therefore, is whether the continuance of the Texas proceedings is oppressive or vexatious to the plaintiff in the proceedings before this Court.
The Court noted that the Defendants in the complaint filed before the Texas Court essentially sought an injunction against the plaintiff reflecting the “76” mark on its www.unicalglobal.com webpage or social media pages so as to be accessible to the customers in the US. It is the stand of the defendants that so long the plaintiff’s website could not be accessed by persons in US, their grievance would stand satisfied.
The Delhi High Court noted that trademark rights being territorial, the defendants are as entitled to protect their US trademarks, as is the plaintiff entitled to protect its Indian trade mark, as the concept of forum conveniens has been approached in both the proceedings. The proceedings before the Texas Court wherein the defendant sought protection for “76” mark in respect of its usage in US, is therefore, neither oppressive nor vexatious, in any manner to the continuance of the present proceedings.
Resultantly, the anti-suit injunction granted vide order dated 08.03.2021 stands vacated.