A plaintiff can maintain a passing off action irrespective of trade mark registration status, highlighting the need for genuine evidence in trade mark disputes.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

I.A. 25235/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

1. By way of the present judgment, I shall decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’) seeking grant of an interim injunction against the defendants.

2. The present application was heard on 27^th March 2025, 7^th May 2025, 26^th May 2025 and 7^th July 2025, when the judgment was reserved.

CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT

3. The plaintiff, Hi Tech Arai Private Limited, is engaged in the design, manufacture and supply of rubber products (such as oil seals, valve stem seals, O-rings, gaskets and reed valve assembly) and aluminium die casting products. The plaintiff is a leading industry supplier of oil seals for two-wheelers and four-wheelers in India.

4. The plaintiff was incorporated by Shri. R. Lakshminarayanan, the Founder Chairman, as ‘Hi-Tech Ancillaries Private Limited’ on 18^th February 1985.

5. In the year 1986, the plaintiff entered into a technical collaboration with a renowned Japanese company, namely, Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan for transfer of technology relating to manufacturing of inter alia reed valve assembly products and sealing products including oil seals.

6. Subsequent to the aforesaid collaboration, the name of the plaintiff was changed to ‘Hi Tech Arai Limited’ with effect from 23^rd December 1993. Thereafter, during the financial year 2010-11, the name of the plaintiff was changed to ‘Hi-Tech Arai Private Limited’.

7. The plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the mark ‘HTA’ and has been using the said mark in relation to its goods since the year 1985. Owing to its successful joint venture with Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan and Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan, the plaintiff adopted the marks ‘Ars-HTA’ and in the year 1994.

8. The marks ‘HTA’, ‘Ars-HTA’, ‘Ars-HTA Oil Seals’ are coined words, which have a significance only with respect to the plaintiff’s business, but otherwise have no meaning attributable to any other person or entity, including the defendants. The plaintiff has been continuously and extensively using the aforesaid marks and other HTA-formative marks since their respective adoption till date.

9. The plaintiff is the exclusive licensee of the rights vesting in the trade marks ‘ARS’, and other trade marks such as ‘ARAI’ and the concentric logo as incorporated in the mark owned by Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan in India.

10. Most of the drawings/products developed and manufactured by the plaintiff between 1985 and 1994 bear the engraving ‘HTA’ and most of the drawings/products developed and manufactured by the plaintiff from the year 1994 to 2023 bear the engravings ‘HTA’ or ‘Ars-HTA’.

11. The plaintiff currently supplies approximately 20 lakh products on a daily basis across India. The gross sales of rubber products of the plaintiff from 1985 to 2022-23 are given in paragraph 34 of the plaint. Pertinently, the total sales revenue of the plaintiff’s rubber products in the financial year 2022-2023 alone were to the tune of INR 600 crores.

12. The plaintiff is a parts supplier to major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in the automobile sector. Details of some of the notable customers of the plaintiff across different segments, which are given in paragraph 30 of the plaint, are given below:

• In the two-wheeler segment – Hero Motocorp Limited, Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India Limited, Mahindra Two Wheelers Limited and Royal Enfield.

• In the three-wheeler segment – Bajaj Auto Limited, T