Summary
This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s decision in the HTA trademark dispute between Hi-Tech Arai and Paul Components. The Court found that Hi-Tech Arai had established continuous use of the HTA mark since 1985, supported by credible evidence, while the defendants’ claims of prior use were inconsistent and based on fabricated documents. The Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Hi-Tech Arai, restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks, trade dress, and packaging. The decision underscores the importance of bona fide use and the consequences of dishonest adoption in Indian trademark law.
This case highlights the Court’s strict stance against dishonest adoption, fabricated evidence, and bad faith in trademark use, arising from the HTA trademark dispute between Hi-Tech Arai and Paul Components.
Background
Hi-Tech Arai Private Limited (Plaintiff) is a leading manufacturer and supplier of aluminium die casting products and rubber products such as oil seals for two-wheelers and four-wheelers in India. The company, originally incorporated as Hi-Tech Ancillaries Private Limited, has used the mark ‘HTA’ for its goods since incorporation in 1985. Through its collaboration with Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Japan, the company was renamed Hi-Tech Arai Private Limited in 1993. Owing to its successful joint venture with Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd. and Mitsubishi Corporation, Japan, the Plaintiff adopted the marks ‘Ars-HTA’ and its logo in 1994 and became the exclusive licensee of the trademarks ‘ARS’, ‘ARAI’, and the concentric logo owned by Arai Seisakusho Co. Ltd. in India.
Paul Components Pvt. Ltd. (Defendant No. 1), claimed prior use of the mark ‘HTA’ since 1977, and was already involved in a parallel infringement suit (CS(COMM) 374/2023), in which the Plaintiff had initially been restrained from using the marks ‘HTA’ and ‘ARS-HTA’. However, this interim order was stayed by the Division Bench in August 2023.
In December 2023, the Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from using its trademarks, trade dress, and packaging, and from passing off their goods as those of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
-
- The Plaintiff had been using ‘HTA’, ‘Ars-HTA’, and its logos continuously since 1985 and had developed substantial goodwill and reputation.
- Evidence such as technical drawings, invoices, and mould manufacturing records established use since the 1980s.
- The Defendants’ documents claiming prior use were forged and fabricated, with photographs and brochures digitally altered to show earlier use of the mark.
- The Defendants changed their outer packaging from violet (used during the earlier parallel suit) to black and yellow, closely resembling the Plaintiff’s packaging, showing their bad faith and intent to pass off their products as the Plaintiff’s.
- The Defendants had a pattern of filing applications for third-party well-known marks such as JCB, Cummins, Hino Prime, and Meritor, revealing mala fide intent.
Defendants’ Contentions
-
- The Defendants argued they were prior users of ‘HTA’ since 1977 through their predecessor, M/s Paul & Paul managed by Mrs. Harinder Kaur and her son, Mr. Maninder Pal Singh (Defendant No. 2). They also relied on their registrations for the ‘HTA’ marks in classes 12 and 17.
- They alleged that the Plaintiff used ‘HTA’ merely as a vendor code or product reference number, not as a trademark.
- They relied on the earlier single-judge order granting them an injunction in 2023 (later stayed).
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Bansal while examining the HTA trademark dispute, noted that both parties were dealing in identical goods (oil seals and rubber products) and using similar trade dress and packaging, causing a high likelihood of confusion.
 |  |
|---|
On Prior Use and Fabricated Evidence
-
- The Court found that Hi-Tech Arai had demonstrated continuous use of the mark ‘HTA’ since 1985, supported by credible documents.
- In contrast, Paul Components’ claim of prior use was unsupported and inconsistent. Their trademark filings had shifted user claims from 1994 in earlier applications to 1977 in later ones, raising serious doubt.
- Crucially, the Court found that the defendants had filed doctored photographs and brochures, replacing their original branding (“Paul Components”) with ‘HTA’ in trade fair images.
- References to mobile numbers and event details in the Defendants’ “old” brochures revealed chronological impossibilities, further proving manipulation.
On Dishonest Conduct
The Court noted that the Defendants:
-
- Adopted identical marks and copied the Plaintiff’s trade dress.
- Attempted to register the Plaintiff’s licensed marks ‘ARS’ and ‘ARAI’.
- Had filed multiple trademark applications for well-known third-party brands, revealing a systematic pattern of fraudulent trademark filings, and thus demonstrating bad faith and mala fide intent from the very inception.
Decision
A prima facie case of passing off was made out in favour of Hi-Tech Arai. The Court also noted that the balance of convenience lay with the Plaintiff, a long-established player with significant market presence and sales. Accordingly, until the final adjudication of the suit, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the Defendants, their directors, agents, and distributors from:
-
- Using the marks ‘HTA’, ‘ARS-HTA’, or any deceptively similar marks.
- Using the concentric circle logos or trade dress identical to that of the Plaintiff.
- Selling, advertising, or exporting goods under the impugned marks or packaging.
Citation: Hi Tech Arai Private Limited vs Paul Components Private Limited & Ors, I.A. 25235/2023 in CS(COMM) 891/2023, Delhi High Court decision dated 9th September, 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/152594923/.
Article Review by Ms. Ashwini Arun
