( 1 ) HEARD the counsel for appellant sri M. S. Ramachander Rao and the counsel for respondent Sri T. S. Anand.

( 2 ) THE main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for hearing with the consent of both the counsel in view of the fact that the application for temporary injunction was opposed by the respondent/ defendant by lodging a caveat and entering appearance. Both the counsel had addressed elaborate arguments putting forth their respective contentions.

( 3 ) THE dispute is in relation to a trade mark "double Kamal" [double Lotus]. The unsuccessful petitioner/plaintiff in LA. No. 283/2002 in O. S. No. 11/2002 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari at rajahmundry is the appellant and the respondent/defendant in the said application is the respondent in the present appeal. The appellant filed O. S. No. 11/2002 on the file of District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant from using the plaintiff s trade mark Double Kamal [double Lotus] or carrying its business with the said mark and for other appropriate reliefs.

( 4 ) THE case of the appellant in nutshell is that the appellant is a registered firm having its business office at Ambajipet, East godavari District and doing business in gunnies, twine, coconuts (both dry and water) and other products and the appellant firm commenced its business originally in the year 1990 and in the year 1992, the firm consisted of four partners. The said firm carried on its business since the year 1990 and due to hard work the firm acquired considerable goodwill in the business circles throughout India and main business of the appellant firm is sale of dry and water coconuts and copra and such business is carried on by the appellant with the trade mark Double Kamal [double Lotus] and this trade mark is having high recognition and reputation in the customers throughout india, especially in Madhya Pradesh, rajasthan, Maharashtra and Andhra pradesh. The appellant firm also supplies the above commodities to wholesalers in various places in the aforesaid States and other States in India who in turn sell the same to their retail customers who recognize and identify the commodities supplied by the appellant with the help of the trade mark double Kamal [double Lotus] and most of the customers of these commodities in the states referred to supra are below average intellectual community and hence they are able to identify the appellant s commodities mainly with the help of the trade mark above referred to. It is further stated that one of the partners retired from the firm with effect from 30-9-1994 and the remaining partners including the managing partner of the appellant firm and the respondent/ defendant continued to run the business by taking over the assets and liabilities under a partnership deed dated 1-10-1994. Subsequent thereto, the respondent/ defendant Sri G. Viswanadham also retired from the appellant firm with effect from 31-12-2000 and the present managing partner of the appellant and another partner gokavarapu Venkataratnam continued as partners of the appellant firm by taking over the assets and liabilities, goodwill, trade mark and also trade mark of the firm and are continuing with the said business as such. It is also the further case of the appellant that immediately after retiring the respondent/defendant also informed the tax authorities under letter dated 1-1-2001 about his retirement from the firm and also about the fact that he has nothing to do with the firm, its assets, and liabilities etc. Subsequent thereto, the firm was reconstituted under a fresh partnership deed dated 1-1-2001 and the appellant firm has been continuing the same business under the same trade name and the same trade mark. Further, a specific stand was taken by the appellant that the amounts payable to the respondent/ defendant were also paid in full settlement of the claim made by him after his retire