The plaintiff's passing off action was maintainable, and the defendants' use of the mark HONDA for pressure cookers was likely to mislead the public and dilute the plaintiff's goodwill.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is a company incorporated in Japan. The plaintiff s line of operation includes manufacture and sale of motorcycles, motor cars, power equipments etc. It also provides financial services. It is pleaded that the company is manufacturing and marketing its products all over the world under the trade mark HONDA, which is of international repute. It is one of the largest producers of automobiles in the world and has over 100 production facilities in 39 countries of the world including India and its products bearing the mark honda are sold in more than 160 countries. The plaintiff is known for its innovative techniques and is committed to produce quality products. It takes keen interest in promoting clean environment, low emission and low fuel consumption. These coupled with traffic safety requirements of international standard has made it one of the most prominent and responsible multinational corporations in the world. It has ecquired international dimensions. It started exporting its motorcycles under the mark HONDA to U. S. A. as early as in the year 1959. Later on it also developed the manufacturing operations in U. S. A. for motor cars. A number of manufacturing units were also" developed in various countries of Europe. It started retailing and exporting of motorcycles in various countries of Asia since late Fifties. It is averred that it has been using the trade mark HONDA For its products in India since 1957. Its quality products and marketing the same under the mark HONDA hae helped it to achieve a very high turn over. The plaintiff in para no. 7 of the plaint has given a statement showing the net sales and other operating revenues of the company between the years 1974 and 1997. On account of its initial adoption and its extensive use, the mark HONDA became exclusively, associated with the plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers. It, in fact, became a house mark of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff s products bearing the mark HONDA are being advertised in well known journals having international circulation. e. g. Asia inc. , Asia Week, Forbes etc. Its products bearing the mark HONDA have also been advertised in many international magazines including "national Geographic" having considerable circulation in India. It also entered into collaboration arrangements in India with indian companies. In 1983, it entered into a Joint venture with Hero Cycles. Pvt. Ltd. , a company belonging to punjab based Muhjal Group for manufacturing motorcycles. The joint venture company. "hero Honda Motors Limited" was permitted to use the mark HERO. HONDA. Another Joint venture company was promoted in the year. 1985 named shriram Honda Power Equipment Ltd. , presently known as honda Siel Power Products Ltd. This company is engaged in the manufacturing of generator sets The mark "honda" was allowed by the plaintiff to be used as part of the trade mark of the said company "shriram HONDA". Lately in the year 1997, the plaintiff promoted another company honda Siel Cars India Ltd. , which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor cars under the house mark honda and the sub-brand CITY The plaintiff s cars otherwise are being sold in India for the last many decades. The plaintiff has also obtained several registrations of the trade mark HONDA in India in various, classes under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958. It has also applied for registration of the trad mark honda in all the classes contained in 4th Schedule to the trade and Merchandise Marks Rules,1959. The plaintiff s case is that the goodwill and reputation of its mark honda, has made, the said mark distinctive of the plaintiff being a symbol of high quality products.

( 2 ) IN April,1991, the plaintiff came*to know from the Trade Marks Journal dated 1st April,1991 that an, application for registration of trade , mark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers. (non-electric) had been filed in the name of M/s Steel India, defendant No. 5. t