Hi Tech Arai Private Limited Vs. Paul Components Private Limited

Legal Insights on Trademark Dishonesty and Document Fabrication

Facts: The plaintiff, Hi Tech Arai Private Limited, is a well-established company engaged in manufacturing and supplying rubber products like oil seals and aluminium die casting products, primarily for the automobile industry. They have used the trademark "HTA" since 1985 and other related marks ("Ars-HTA," logos with concentric circles) since the 1990s. Their products enjoy substantial sales and goodwill among major Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) in India.

The defendant, Paul Components Private Limited, claims to have been using the "HTA" mark since 1977 and is the registered proprietor of that mark based on registrations starting from 2007, though claiming back use to 1977. They are also in the same business of manufacturing oil seals and rubber parts. The defendant had previously sued the plaintiff for trademark infringement and obtained an interim injunction, which was stayed by the Division Bench.

Dispute: The plaintiff filed the current suit to restrain the defendants from using the plaintiff’s trademarks, trade dresses, packaging, and passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The main points of dispute were:  Who was the prior user of the "HTA" mark? Whether the defendants' use of the mark and packaging was honest or intended to deceive consumers by copying the plaintiff’s identity. Validity and authenticity of documents and photographs presented by the defendants to show prior use since 1977. Whether the defendants acted in bad faith by adopting marks similar to the plaintiff’s and other third-party well-known trademarks.

Reasoning: The Court carefully examined the documentary evidence provided by both parties. The plaintiff submitted extensive evidence including sales figures, technical drawings, purchase orders, invoices, and packaging samples showing consistent use of "HTA" and related marks since 1985. The defendants' evidence was weaker and included trade mark registrations with claims of prior use starting in 1977. 

However, upon closer scrutiny: The defendants had filed manipulated photographs in a related proceeding, where marks "HTA" were digitally inserted into images that originally bore their "Paul Components" mark. Brochures filed by defendants contained errors in dates (e.g., wrong years for notable industry expos) indicating fabrication. Defendants had changed their user claim in trademark applications only after learning of plaintiff’s use history, suggesting backdating to claim priority. Defendants had also filed trademark applications for well-known third-party marks such as "JCB," "CUMMINS," and others without authorization, showing a pattern of bad faith. Defendants changed their product packaging color schemes to closely resemble the plaintiff’s packaging, indicating intent to confuse consumers. 

The plaintiff’s prior use of "HTA" as a trademark in trade and business papers, packaging, and sales was established under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which recognizes use on business papers as valid trademark use. The Court referred to established legal principles on passing off, highlighting that even if a mark is registered by one party, an unregistered prior user with goodwill can seek relief. The Court discredited defendants’ evidence, especially in light of documented manipulations and lack of plausible explanations for adopting similar marks and third-party trademarks.Prima facie, the plaintiff had demonstrated significant goodwill and reputation in these marks, while defendants exhibited mala fide intent and dishonesty in adopting marks and packaging similar to the plaintiff’s.

Decision: The Court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff for passing off. The defendants were restrained from using the mark "HTA" and any deceptively similar marks, the logos, and the trade dress of the plaintiff’s packaging until the final decision in the suit. The interim injunction was granted to protect the plaintiff’s reputation and prevent harm to consumers and the plaintiff’s business.

Case Title: Hi Tech Arai Private Limited Vs. Paul Components Private Limited & Ors.

Order Date: September 9, 2025

Case Number: CS(COMM) 891/2023

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7819

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi