The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement due to the distinctiveness of the defendant's modified mark and the plaintiff's lack of market presence.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 40846/2024 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the captioned application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter the ‘CPC’).

2. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing and passing off the trade mark of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs.

3. Summons in the suit were issued on 29^th September, 2024, and notice in the interim injunction application was issued on 1^st October 2024. However, no ad-interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The reply to the interim application was filed on behalf of the defendant on 15^th October, 2024, and a rejoinder thereto has been filed by the plaintiff on 19^th October, 2024.

5. Submissions of the parties were heard on 30^th September 2024, 1^st October 2024, 22^nd October 2024, 29^th October 2024, and 18^th November 2024, when the judgment was reserved.

CASE SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFF

6. The case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows:

6.1. The plaintiff [Gensol Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.], a subsidiary of Gensol Engineering Limited, is a company incorporated in the year 2022 with the vision to accelerate electric vehicle (EV) adoption towards a sustainable future.

6.2. The plaintiff operates a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility designed to produce a range of electric vehicles, including shared mobility fleets, cargo vehicles, personal mobility solutions, and mini-SUVs, to cater to diverse urban mobility needs.

6.3. Around August 2022, the plaintiff conceptualized the development of an innovative electric vehicle specifically designed for urban mobility. To bring this vision to life, the plaintiff collaborated with a third-party vendor to create a life-sized clay model of the vehicle.

6.4. On 19^th September, 2022, the plaintiff’s design team commenced internal work on the electric vehicle’s design. Upon finalization of the design, the plaintiff coined and adopted the mark ‘EZIO’ for the vehicle. In December 2022, along with the term ‘EZIO’, the plaintiff, with the assistance of a third party, also created the logo.

6.5. On 30^th June, 2023, the plaintiff applied for registration of the word mark ‘EZIO’ in Class 12 on a ‘ proposed to be used ’ basis with the Trade Marks Registry. After the publication of the mark on 20^th November 2023, the Trade Marks Registry granted the registration of the word mark ‘EZIO’ in favour of the plaintiff on 19^th May, 2024. The said registration is subsisting and valid till 30^th June 2033.

6.6. After obtaining requisite permissions from the Automotive Research Association of India (‘ARAI’) and design registration for its vehicle, on 7^th January 2024, the plaintiff tested its first electric vehicle on the roads of Pune, Maharashtra.

6.7. The plaintiff has provided details of the expenditure incurred in the development of the vehicle under its mark ‘EZIO’ in paragraph 17 of the plaint.

6.8. On 18^th September, 2024, the plaintiff came across a newspaper article dated 9^th September, 2024, which highlighted the defendant’s announcement of the launch of a new commercial electric four-wheeler under the mark ‘eZEO’ /

6.9. Upon further investigation, the plaintiff came across the website of the defendant, wherein the plaintiff found that the defendant had announced the launch of its Electric Vehicle under the mark ‘eZEO’ on 3^rd October, 202