In the main suit, i.e., C.S. (Comm.Div) No.468 of 2018, there is a sole plaintiff and a lone defendant. Both sole plaintiff and lone defendant are juristic persons. While sole plaintiff is a public limited company incorporated in India, lone defendant is a private limited company incorporated in India. Parties in the instant application (A.No.6799 of 2018) shall be referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit in this order for the sake of convenience and clarity.

2. Instant application (i.e., A.No.6799 of 2018) has been taken out by sole defendant with a prayer to revoke leave to sue granted in A.No.5114 of 2018 on 12.07.2018. Before this Commercial Division adverts to the instant leave revocation application, a concise precise of facts necessary to appreciate this order has to be noticed and the same is given infra under the caption 'Precise of Facts'.

3. Precise of Facts :

(a) Plaintiff has its registered office at No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of commercial and defence vehicles as well as power solutions. According to plaintiff, it is an automotive and transport vehicle group with an international market employing approximately 12,000 personnel and providing a wide spectrum of transportation related products and services.

(b) According to plaintiff, it honestly adopted the mark 'CAPTAIN' (hereinafter referred to as 'suit TM' for convenience and clarity) in the year 2013 for its range of heavy commercial vehicles. It is also plaintiff's case that it subsequently unveiled to the world their tipper model named 'CAPTAIN 2523' on 06.01.2014. It is also plaintiff's case that its new range of commercial vehicles under the suit TM was launched in February, 2014. A screen shot of one of plaintiff's advertisements published in the media in early February 2014 and now given in the plaint is as follows :

(c) Most important aspect to be noticed is, even according to the plaint, the plaintiff does not have trade mark registration for the suit TM. In other words, suit TM is an unregistered mark, as far as plaintiff is concerned (defendant has registration for suit TM and the same will be referred to infra).

(d) While things stood as above, defendant sent a cease and desist notice dated 01.06.2018 (received by plaintiff on 07.06.2018), calling upon plaintiff to cease and desist from using the suit TM. Plaintiff has sent a holding response dated 13.06.2018 and a further detailed response dated 29.06.2018 to the aforesaid cease and desist notice.

(e) Crux and gravamen of the aforesaid cease and desist notice, holding response and detailed response is that defendant has trade mark registration for the suit TM in Classes 7 and 12 of relevant schedule under the Rules under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'TM Act' for brevity). Such registration in favour of defendant qua suit TM in Classes 7 and 12 are for mini tractors, parts thereof and automatic seed drill planter. Plaintiff's contention is that they are not using the suit TM in any of these products and that they are using it only in heavy commercial vehicles and therefore, they are under no obligation to comply with the demand in the cease and desist notice.

(f) As mentioned supra, cease and desist notice issued by the defendant is dated 01.06.2018, interim/holding reply of plaintiff is dated 13.06.2018 and detailed reply of plaintiff is dated 29.06.2018. Thereafter, plaintiff presented the instant main suit, i.e., C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.468 of 2018 in this Court on 10.7.2018 with prayers inter-alia for injunctive reliefs against defendant qua passing off/quia timet regarding suit TM. Other ancillary reliefs for accounts and costs also constitute the prayer in the suit.

(g) Along with proposed plaint, an application in A.No.5114 of 2018 was taken out by plaintiff with a prayer for leave to sue, which, as mentioned supra, was acceded to by this Court by an order dated 12.07.2018 pri