Micromax had an injunction stopping OnePlus selling phones in India, obtained on the strength of an exclusive licence to Cyanogen’s operating system. The Division Bench vacated it just before the winter recess — because OnePlus was never properly heard, and because nobody had asked what Cyanogen had left to give.
What happened
Just before its winter recess, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court vacated the ad-interim injunction against the sale of OnePlus One mobile phones in India.
The primary reason was procedural: the case had been disposed of in a hurry and under pressure, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by law for filing of pleadings — the plaint and the counter-statement. Put simply, the Division Bench held that OnePlus was not given a fair opportunity of being heard.
The legal issues the Single Judge should have addressed
The order was not vacated on technical grounds alone. The Bench identified substantive questions the Single Judge ought to have examined in greater depth.
1. What rights did Cyanogen confer on Micromax under the agreement dated 26 September 2014? Without clarity on this, whether Micromax’s rights were infringed at all cannot be determined.
2. What rights were created in favour of OnePlus under the two agreements it entered into with Cyanogen in February 2014?
3. Does a conflict arise? And if so — during the period of validity of the earlier OnePlus agreements, could Cyanogen confer an exclusive right to operate in India on Micromax?
Here the court invoked a foundational principle: no person can convey a better title than they have. In the court’s words:
If the owner of a property permits limited use of his property for a duration of time to a second party, upon transferring the ownership in the property to a third party, the limited right limited to the period of the use of the property in favour of the second party would operate as a clog on the ownership of the third party.
That is the heart of it. An exclusive licence granted later cannot retrospectively extinguish rights already granted to someone else.
4. Questions of fact also required consideration — the money OnePlus had spent on marketing, and the differences in personalised features, intuitive interface, speed and enhanced security between the products.
The jurisdiction point
The Bench raised an interesting question about deciding issues arising from the Cyanogen–OnePlus agreement. It held that the appropriate forum for disputes between Cyanogen and OnePlus would be the courts of the Northern District of California — but that while deciding contractual obligations between A and B, this court cannot compel either party to breach its agreement with C.
The logic is sound: to determine what rights Cyanogen conferred on Micromax, one must first establish what rights OnePlus already held from Cyanogen. The Indian court could not resolve the Californian contract, but neither could it pretend it didn’t exist.
On ex parte injunctions
The other principal question was whether Micromax had made out a strong case for an ex parte injunction.
The court held that caution is required in granting ex parte relief, which should follow only where the plaintiff has made out a strong prima facie case. It did not consider Micromax had done so, and directed the Single Judge to hear the case afresh within two weeks from 24 December 2014.
That caution is the durable lesson. An ex parte injunction halting a product’s sale in a market is a commercially decisive order made without hearing the affected party — and the Division Bench’s willingness to unwind one, quickly, matters more than the outcome of this particular dispute.
The takeaways
- A party must be heard — pleadings cannot be short-circuited by urgency.
- No one can grant better title than they hold — later exclusivity cannot erase earlier rights.
- Foreign-contract questions can’t be ignored even where the forum lies elsewhere.
- Ex parte injunctions need a strong prima facie case — not merely an arguable one.
Frequently asked questions
Why was the injunction against OnePlus vacated? Chiefly because OnePlus was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, the pleadings procedure having not been followed — and because substantive questions about the competing Cyanogen agreements were left unexamined.
Can an exclusive licence override an earlier licence to someone else? No — no person can convey a better title than they hold, so an earlier limited grant operates as a clog on the later exclusive right.
When is an ex parte injunction appropriate? Only where the plaintiff makes out a strong prima facie case; courts are required to exercise caution before granting relief without hearing the other side.
Can an Indian court decide a contract governed by foreign law? It may need to consider its effect, but it cannot compel a party to breach an agreement with a third party whose disputes belong before another forum.