Vipin Sanghi, J.

I.A. Nos.19350/2015 & 22566/2015

1. The first is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC to seek ad-interim injunction against the defendant so as to restrain the defendant from using the tread pattern claimed by the plaintiff to be its proprietary in respect of its truck tyre Endurance LD 10.00 R20, or any other tread pattern identical or similar therewith, in respect of their business of importing and selling of tyres, or representing a trade connection with the plaintiff so as to pass off, or enable others to pass off their goods/ services as that of the applicant/ plaintiff.

2. Vide order dated 15.09.2015, this Court passed an ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from using the tread pattern claimed by the plaintiff “and/or any other tread pattern identical with or similar to the plaintiff’s tread pattern in any manner whatsoever in respect of their business, inter alia, of importing, sale etc. of tyres and/or representing a trade connection with the plaintiff so as to pass off or enable others to pass off their business and/or goods/services as that of the plaintiff’s or in some manner connected with the plaintiff till the next date of hearing”. The said ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction continues to operate. Consequently, the defendant has filed the aforesaid application i.e. I.A. No.22566/2015 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to seek vacation of the said order.

3. Learned counsels were heard in the two applications aforesaid and orders reserved. Since the same could not be pronounced on account of heavy load of work, the matter was directed to be listed for recapitulation of submissions. The same were heard and orders were again reserved.

Plaintiffs Submissions

4. The plaintiff claims to be an incorporated company, established in the year 1972, engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of motor vehicle tyres. It is India’s second largest manufacturer of tyres and amongst the twenty top manufacturers of tyres in the world. It sells a range of automotive tyres for passenger cars, trucks and buses, farm, off-the-road, industrial and specialty application vehicles like those employed in mining, retreaded tyres and retreading material. It has presence in Asia and Europe with manufacturing facilities in India and Hungary, Europe. It claims to export its products to over 100 countries. It claims to employ over 15,000 people across the world.

5. The plaintiff avers that it has its own research and development team engaged in development and innovation of new kind of tyres. It has thousands of retail dealers and outlets in India and Europe. On account of its success, it has achieved worldwide acclaim and has been bestowed with several awards and recognitions. Over the years, its sales have swelled. In the year 2013-14, the same stood at Rs.133,103.28 million.

6. The case of the plaintiff is that in the tyre industry, tyres are manufactured with distinctive treads based upon the type of vehicle, road conditions, load application etc. The tread pattern on the tyres is claimed to be one of the most important factors to make the tyres stand out in the showroom, or tyre shops. The tread affords necessary grip between the tyre and ground during movement of the vehicle. The plaintiff submits that, since all tyres are black and circular, the prominent distinguishing feature at first glance of a tyre of one manufacturer, from that of another manufacturer, is its tread pattern. For this reason, in the tyre industry, the pattern of the tread is accepted as the distinctive hallmark of the manufacturer, and assumes significance in differentiating between different manufacturers and the quality of their tyres.

7. The plaintiff states that each manufacturer manufactures tyres with unique and different tread pattern. The plaintiff itself has several tread patterns in respect of its various types of tyres. One of the tread patterns used by the