Defendants Filed Fabricated Documents to Claim Prior Use of ‘HTA’ – Delhi High Court Slams Trademark Infringement Tactics, Grants Injunction

“Adoption of Identical Marks Without Justification Is Dishonest and Mala Fide” –  Delhi High Court passed a powerful interim order  issuing a sweeping injunction to protect the trademark ‘HTA’ and other related marks of the plaintiff. In a detailed judgment, Justice Amit Bansal condemned the defendants for "doctoring photographs, filing fabricated brochures, and making a dishonest attempt to establish false priority", branding the entire defense as a calculated fraud.

“This Court is of the view that the conduct of the defendants was blatantly dishonest and mala fide from the very inception and shocks the conscience of the Court”

The Court’s observations were scathing as it tore apart the defendants’ case by pointing out manipulated documentary evidence and a deliberate pattern of adopting well-known third-party trademarks. The plaintiff, Hi Tech Arai Pvt. Ltd., was granted a broad injunction against the defendants’ use of the marks ‘HTA’, ‘Ars-HTA’, and logos deceptively similar to its distinctive concentric-circle trade dress.

“Passing Off Action Is Maintainable Even Against a Registered Proprietor” – Delhi High Court Reaffirms Common Law Trademark Rights

The Court began by reaffirming a key legal principle under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Quoting the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, Justice Bansal observed:

“An action for passing off shall remain unaffected by any registration provided under the Act.”

It clarified that registration does not automatically negate a prior user’s rights, and therefore even if the defendants had registered their marks, the plaintiff’s long-standing use entitled it to statutory and common law protection.

“The Plaintiff Has Established Use Since 1985 with Clear Documentary Evidence” – Court Accepts Sales Records, Technical Drawings, and Mould Invoices

Rejecting the defendants' claims that the plaintiff merely used the letters 'HTA' as a part number, the Court meticulously examined the materials placed on record, holding:

“The plaintiff has demonstrated its use of the mark ‘HTA’ from the year 1985 and the use of the concentric circle logos from the year 1997.”

Justice Bansal noted that technical drawings from December 1985, invoices from April 1986, and purchase orders from the 1989–1995 period all contained the mark ‘HTA’ in contexts that clearly indicated its use as a source identifier, not just as internal codes.

He added: “Use of the mark ‘HTA’ on invoices as well as other business papers and documents would clearly amount to use of the same as a trade mark in terms of Section 29(6)(d) of the Act.”

“Photographs and Brochures Relied Upon by Defendants Were Doctored” – Court Slams Manipulation of Trade Evidence

The Court found that the defendants fabricated evidence to support a false narrative of trademark use since 1977.

It noted: “On a prima facie view, it is evident that the defendant no.1 had doctored the photographs filed in CS(COMM) 374/2023... to insert the mark ‘HTA’/ ‘HTA Oil Seals’.”

The same photographs were found on the defendants’ website without the impugned marks, and later quietly removed. Using archive.org records, the plaintiff proved the tampering. Additionally, brochures carried mobile numbers that didn’t exist at the time and misrepresented Auto Expo years.

The Court remarked: “This amounts to an unequivocal admission on behalf of the defendants regarding the manipulation and fabrication of the aforesaid documents.”

“Defendants’ Shift in Trademark User Date from 1994 to 1977 Was Strategically Timed” – Fabrication Aimed at Defeating Plaintiff’s Prior Use

Initially, the defendants’ trademark applications claimed user since 1994. But in November 2022, they changed their user claim to 1977.

The Court observed: “It appears this was done because the defendants came to know of the plaintiff’s use of the mark ‘HTA’ since the year 1985... the user date was changed from 1994 to 1977 to show prior use.”

This abrupt change, coupled with fabricated brochures and altered packaging, was interpreted as evidence of bad faith.

“No Explanation Given for Copying ‘ARS’ and ‘ARAI’ Marks – Defendant’s Conduct Indicates Pattern of Infringement”

The Court noted that the defendants also filed trademark applications for marks like ‘ARS’ and ‘ARAI’, which were neither coined by them nor connected to their business. These marks are exclusively licensed to the plaintiff through its Japanese collaborators.

The Court stated:

“There is no explanation or justification given by the defendants as to how they claimed proprietary rights over the marks ‘ARS’ and ‘ARAI’... This clearly shows the mala fide intent and bad faith of the defendants.”

“Defendants Habitually Apply for Well-Known Third-Party Marks Like ‘JCB’, ‘CUMMINS’, ‘MERITOR’” – Court Notes Fraudulent Modus Operandi

The judgment went further to expose the defendants’ broader strategy. It highlighted applications for globally renowned trademarks by the defendants without any affiliation.

Justice Bansal remarked: “The modus operandi of the defendants is to fraudulently file applications for registration of well-known third-party trade marks and then claim proprietary rights...”

This included brands like ‘JCB’, ‘CUMMINS’, ‘MERITOR’, and ‘HINO PRIME’, all of which are major international players.

“Defendants Changed Packaging to Mimic Plaintiff’s Trade Dress” – Court Observes Deceptive Trade Practices

The defendants initially claimed their packaging was purple. However, evidence showed that they switched to black-and-yellow boxes—identical to the plaintiff’s packaging.

“This amounts to a clear admission that the defendants have changed the colour combination used for their packaging... deliberately to come even closer to the plaintiff’s packaging.”

Court Grants Injunction Restraining Defendants from Using HTA and Associated Packaging

Holding that the defendants’ conduct was deceitful and commercially exploitative, the Court held:

“The balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff... Irreparable loss, harm and injury would be caused not only to the plaintiff but also to the public.”

The Court restrained the defendants from:

• Using the mark ‘HTA’, ‘Ars-HTA’, or any deceptively similar mark.

• Using the concentric circle logos or any packaging similar to the plaintiff’s.

• Employing any trade dress that mimics the plaintiff’s established packaging.

“The Plaintiff Has Built a ₹600 Crore Brand Over 38 Years; It Deserves Protection from Brazen Copycats” – Court Concludes

The Court's message was clear: businesses with longstanding brand equity must be protected from dishonest competitors.

It concluded:

“The defendants’ use of the impugned marks can only be justified with their intention to cause confusion and deception among the consumers... Their conduct shocks the conscience of the Court.”

Date of Judgment: September 9, 2025