L.Narasimha Reddy, J.

Defendants in O.S.No.222 of 2011, on the file of the V-Additional District Judge, Nellore, are the appellants.

The respondent filed the suit for perpetual injunction restraining the appellants herein from manufacturing or marketing the product ‘snuff’ with the name and description ‘Sri Devika’ brand.

The respondent pleaded that he has been manufacturing the snuff with the trademark ‘Sridevi’, both with name and pictorial description from 1992 onwards and that the 2nd appellant, who is his brother, worked as salesman under him from 1996 to 2009. He pleaded that the 2nd appellant left the job and together with his wife, the 1st appellant, started manufacturing the snuff with the deceptive description of ‘Sri Devika’ from April, 2011 onwards. The respondent pleaded that the description and pictorial trade mark of the product manufactured by the 2nd appellant are very deceptive and amounts to passing off the goods which are manufactured by the respondent with the trade mark ‘Sridevi’.

The respondent has also filed I.A.No.376 of 2011 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. The averments in the plaint have almost been repeated in the affidavit filed in support of the IA.

The appellants opposed the application by filing counter. According to them, the snuff with the trade mark ‘Sridevi’ was being manufactured by the joint family and after the 2nd appellant got separated, he too started manufacturing the snuff but with a different description and trade mark. They pleaded that there is no comparison between the names ‘Sridevi’ and ‘Sri Devika’ and even the picture is substantially different.

Through its order dated 04.07.2012, the trial Court allowed the IA. Hence, this appeal.

Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that this is not a case where the respondent has invented any special product or that the name or the picture has any special significance for him. He contends that the respondent does not have any monopoly to manufacture snuff and the name and trade mark chosen by the appellants is in no way similar to that of the respondent. He submits that whatever may have been the circumstances under which the trial Court granted an order of temporary injunction, there is a substantial change of events in the recent past, viz., that the respondent got registered a trade mark which is substantially different, both in text and appearance and that the order of temporary injunction cannot be sustained in law.

Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court has recorded a finding as to the similarity of both the products after undertaking a detailed examination and comparison and that no interference is warranted. He submits that not only the name but also the trade made are devised in such a manner that a gullible customer would take the product of the appellants, as the one manufactured by the respondent. He has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in CORN PRODUCTS REFINING CO., v. SHANGRILA FOOD PRODUCTS LTD., (AIR 1960 SC 142),CADILA HEALTH CARE LTD., v. CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., (2001) 5 SCC 73), HEINZ ITALIA AND ANOTHER v. DABUR INDIA LTD., (2007) 6 SCC 1) and that of this Court in ASHWINI CHEMICAL WORKS THROUGH ITS PROP. T.BALA MAHESH, HYDERABAD v. ASWINI HOMEO PHARMACY AND ANOTHER (2010(1) ALT 754).

The suit filed by the respondent is for protection of his trade mark. I.A.No.376 of 2011 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for temporary injunction. The product involved is snuff i.e., tobacco powder.

It is important to take note of the fact that the 2nd appellant and the respondent are brothers and both of them were associated with manufacture of snuff for quite a long time, in their joint family.

Neither oral nor any documentary evidence was taken on record. The trial Court allowed the IA.

The appellants on the one hand and the respondent on the other are manufact