A person who has adopted a mark dishonestly can neither claim prior user nor advance the defence of acquiescence. Granting permanent injunction against use of ‘HELAMIN” by the defendant who used the word as part of his corporate name and trade name though he had stopped using it as a trademark for goods, the Delhi High Court agreed with the plaintiff-proprietor that there can be only one source of goods associated with a mark. In the instant case the defendant had stopped using the trademark and sold goods under the mark ‘INDIAMIN’ but continued to use ‘HELAMIN’ as part of its corporate name causing actual confusion. The defendant argued that in view of the former relationship of agency, it had contributed to the reputation of the mark and also that the plaintiff did not suffer any damage. However, the Court relying on various case laws ruled in favour of the plaintiff and granted permanent injunction. [Helamin Technology Holding SA v. Harbansh Rai & Ors, I.A. No. 10720/2012, Delhi High Court decision dated 9-12-2015]