ORDER : (SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.) By this petition, the petitioner seeks rectification of the register of trade marks insofar as the entry relating to the trade mark MERITOR, which was registered under Trade Mark No.4763841 in Class 4 is concerned. 2. The petitioner asserts that it is the wholly owned subsidiary of Meritor Inc and a leading global supplier of drive train, mobility, braking, after market and electric power train solutions for commercial vehicles and industrial markets. The petitioner further states that it applied for and obtained trade mark registrations for both word and device marks containing the element MERITOR as a prominent feature. By pointing out that such registrations were obtained with effect from 28.07.1997, it is further stated that the petitioner's mark was applied to a range of auto components since 2012. Upon noticing the identical mark of the first respondent, it is stated that the present petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the registration certificate and pointed out that the petitioner's registration is with effect from 28.07.1997. He also points out that the registration is in class 12 in relation to vehicles and vehicle components, and that such registration covers brakes, cam shafts, clutches, differentials and the like. He further submits that registrations were obtained for the petitioner's trade mark in several countries across the globe. In support of this contention, he relies upon the list of registrations at pages 153 to 156 of volume-1 of documents filed by the petitioner. As regards sales turnover, by relying on certificate dated 07.03.2023 from L.R.Prakash and Co, Chartered Accountants, learned counsel submits that the turnover for the year 2022 was about Rs.1377 crores. He also points out that substantial amounts were expended towards advertisement expenditure and that the data relating thereto is also found in the said Chartered Accountants' certificate. With regard to proof of use of the mark in relation to goods manufactured and sold by the petitioner, learned counsel invited my attention to invoice dated 08.03.2012. He further submits that multiple invoices issued between 2012 and the date of filing of the rectification petition have been placed on record. 4. By referring to the registration certificate relating to the impugned mark, learned counsel submits that the impugned mark is identical to the petitioner's mark, and not merely similar. He further submits that multiple invoices issued between 2012 and the date of filing of the rectification petition have been placed on record. 4. By referring to the registration certificate relating to the impugned mark, learned counsel submits that the impugned mark is identical to the petitioner's mark, and not merely similar. Although such registration is in class 4, learned counsel submits that the registration is in respect of industrial oils and greases, which are used extensively in the automobile sector. Since the goods to which the first respondent's trade mark is applied qualify as cognate goods, learned counsel submits that the entry relating to the impugned mark is liable to be expunged so as to prevent dilution of the petitioner's mark and to avert the likelihood of deception or confusion among the public. 5. Learned counsel next pointed out that no evidence of use was submitted along with the counter statement. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner had stated both in the petition and in the rejoinder that there is no evidence of use of the first respondent's mark and that, consequently, the mark is liable to be removed from the register not only under Section 57 , but also under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act). Only thereafter, learned counsel states that the first respondent filed an application for permission to rely on additional documents and enclosed invoices in the additional volume. Even if the said invoices are taken into account, learned counsel contends that the earliest invoice is dated 30.10.2022. 6. By referring to and relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Minda Spectrum Advisory Limited and Others v. Minda Oils India Pvt. Ltd. And Others , 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3033 , particularly paragraph 23 thereof, wherein the fact situation was substantially similar, learned counsel concluded his submissions by reiterating that the impugned mark is liable to be expunged from the register. 7. In response to these contentions, learned counsel for the first respondent advanced about three oral arguments. He also filed written arguments. The first contention of learned counsel was that the impugned mark was advertised before registration. In spite of claiming to be one of the leading players in the automotive industry, learned counsel submits that the petitioner failed to oppose the registration. He also filed written arguments. The first contention of learned counsel was that the impugned mark was advertised before registration. In spite of claiming to be one of the leading players in the automotive industry, learned counsel submits that the petitioner failed to oppose the registration. As a consequence, he submits that the mark was registered with effect from 01.12.2020. He further submits that the first respondent has been in business since the year 2017. Consequently, he states that the petitioner is not entitled to relief on grounds of delay and laches. 8. The second contention of learned counsel is that the first respondent's registration is in class 4 and not in class 12, which is the class in which the petitioner's mark is registered. By further pointing out that the products to which the first respondent's mark is applied are industrial oil and greases, learned counsel submits that there is no likelihood of deception or confusion on the part of customers or consumers. The third contention is that the petitioner's mark is not a well-known mark and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to class- agnostic protection. In support of the contention that the goods are not similar, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. v. M/s.Arokiya Foods , 2023 (93) PTC 592 ('Hatsun Agro'), particularly paragraph 28 thereof, to contend that the origin of the goods of the petitioner and the first respondent are completely different. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited , (2018)9 SCC 183 ('Nandhini Deluxe'), to contend that the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the use of the mark NANDHINI by the appellant therein in relation to restaurants by holding that the services in respect of which the appellant therein used the mark are completely different from the dairy business undertaken by the respondent therein under the trade mark NANDINI. 9. In the context of the above contentions, the first question that falls for consideration is with regard to whether the petitioner's use pre-dates use by the first respondent. The petitioner has placed on record multiple invoices. The earliest invoice on record is invoice dated 08.03.2012. The invoice clearly bears the device mark of the petitioner containing the element MERITOR prominently. In the context of the above contentions, the first question that falls for consideration is with regard to whether the petitioner's use pre-dates use by the first respondent. The petitioner has placed on record multiple invoices. The earliest invoice on record is invoice dated 08.03.2012. The invoice clearly bears the device mark of the petitioner containing the element MERITOR prominently. Several invoices issued between the year 2012 and 2020 have been placed on record. All these invoices disclose the use of the petitioner's trade mark in relation to a range of auto components such as brake assemblies, axle assemblies, cap assemblies and the like. The registration certificate pertaining to the petitioner's trade mark is also on record. As evidenced by trade mark no.762991, the petitioner has obtained registration for word mark MERITOR in class 12 for a range of auto components. The certificate of the Chartered Accountants dated 07.03.2023 indicates substantial sales turnover from 2016 to 2022. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the sales turnover in the year 2022 was about Rs.1377 crores. 10. As regards the first respondent, both the registration certificate and the extract from the trade marks journal are on record. The registration certificate discloses that the registration is for the word mark MERITOR in class 4. Such registration is in respect of industrial oil and greases and is with effect from 01.12.2020. The advertisement carried in trade marks journal no.1980 contains an assertion of use since 11.12.2017. In spite of being permitted to place on record additional documents, the first respondent has not provided any evidence of use since December 2017. On the contrary, the earliest evidence of use is in the form of invoice dated 30.10.2022. These invoices are in relation to lubricants. The above discussion leads to the categorical conclusion that the petitioner is the prior user of the trade mark in India. 11. The next issue that warrants a brief discussion is whether the marks are identical or similar. From a mere visual comparison, it is clear that the word marks are identical. 12. Although the petitioner asserted in the petition that its trade mark is well-known, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this issue. This leads to the most critical aspect, namely, whether the goods are cognate or similar. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandhini Deluxe. 12. Although the petitioner asserted in the petition that its trade mark is well-known, learned counsel for the petitioner did not press this issue. This leads to the most critical aspect, namely, whether the goods are cognate or similar. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nandhini Deluxe. In that case, the respondent before the Supreme Court had adopted and applied the mark NANDINI in the year 1985 in relation to dairy products. The respondent adopted the mark NANDHINI for its restaurants in the year 1989. In that factual context, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's use of the mark NANDHINI was not in relation to similar goods or services. On that basis, relief was granted to the appellant therein. 13. In Hatsun Agro, I examined the law relating to the similarity of goods. In paragraph 28 on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the first respondent, I examined the important criteria in such regard after recording that it is not prudent to attempt an exhaustive catalogue. The criteria specified therein are: the nature of the goods / services; the origin of the goods; the purposes for which the goods / services are used; whether the goods / services are in competition and / or can be used as substitutes for one another; whether the goods / services are complementary and, if so, in what manner and to what extent; the trade connection; and the trade channels. I also noted that other factors such as the strength of the prior mark, the degree of identity or similarity of the marks, the segment or class of consumers or potential consumers; retail environment, circumstances in which the later mark was adopted, etc. would have a bearing on likelihood of confusion, if the goods or services are similar. Significantly, I further concluded that the classification is not determinative in this regard and that goods or services in the same class under the Nice classification may be held to be dissimilar, whereas goods or services in different classes may be held to be similar. 14. The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioner's mark is applied in relation to a range of auto components. The first respondent's mark appears to be applied to industrial oils and greases. This would undoubtedly include oils, lubricants and greases used in the auto industry. 14. The documents on record clearly indicate that the petitioner's mark is applied in relation to a range of auto components. The first respondent's mark appears to be applied to industrial oils and greases. This would undoubtedly include oils, lubricants and greases used in the auto industry. In this connection, it is pertinent to notice that the first respondent carries on business through a proprietary concern called 'Auto India Trade Corporation'. Even the name of the first respondent's proprietary concern is indicative of the nature of business and the sector serviced by the first respondent. While it is true that the goods of the petitioner and those of the first respondent do not have a common origin as contended by learned counsel for the first respondent, the goods of both the petitioner and the first respondent, as noticed above, are targeted largely, if not solely, at the auto industry. In fact, the invoices filed by the first respondent include invoice dated 27.05.2023 raised on an entity called Sri Venketeshwara Auto Agencies. This piece of evidence reinforces the conclusion that the first respondent supplies lubricants to the auto industry. Consequently, there is likely to be substantial overlap in trade channels. 15. As stated earlier, the marks are identical and not merely similar. The evidence on record also leads to the conclusion that the petitioner has applied the mark in India at least since the year 2012, whereas evidence of use of the mark by the first respondent is available only from 30.10.2022. The extent of use by the petitioner is substantial and significant, as evidenced by the sales turnover. In these circumstances, I conclude that the goods are cognate and the use of the impugned mark is likely to cause deception or confusion among the relevant section of the public. 16. As a corollary to the above conclusions, I further conclude that the entry relating to the impugned mark was made without sufficient cause, thereby warranting rectification. 17. For reasons set out above, OP(TM)/14/2023 is allowed by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the entry relating to the trade mark MERITOR under Trade Mark No.4763641 in class 4 from the register of trade marks. This action shall be carried out within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.