A.S. Bopanna, J.— The defendants in O.S. No. 5426/1995 are before this Court in this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007. By the said judgment, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The suit is for permanent injunction against the defendants and persons claiming under them from using in relation to any balm or any other medical product, the impugned trade mark Flying Tiger Balm or Flying Tiger in English and Chinese characters, i.e., the device of Leaping Tiger with wings which is deceptively similar in any manner whatsoever to the plaintiffs' trademark Tiger Balm, Tiger in English and Chinese characters so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants goods as that of the plaintiffs.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is a company constituted under the Laws of Singapore carrying on business as manufactures and dealers of medicinal products known internationally as 'Tiger Balm'. The second plaintiff is also constituted similarly and is stated to be the subsidiary of the first plaintiff since the first plaintiff owns 75% of its shareholding. The first plaintiff is said to be operating through the second plaintiff who is a licencee of the first plaintiff in respect of medicinal products sold under the trade marks Tiger, Tiger Balm and the device of Leaping Tiger. The third plaintiff is said to be a company incorporated in India and is appointed as the licencee by the first plaintiff to manufacture and market the above said medicinal products. The second defendant is said to be a manufacturer and dealer of medicinal products including balm and oil and the first defendant is engaged in selling the second defendants' products in Bangalore. The said manufacture and sale is by using the trademark Flying Tiger Balm, Flying Tiger, Tiger Balm, Tiger and the labels, cartons and both are said to be deceptively similar to the trademark, labels, cartons and bottle of the first plaintiff as used by the second and third plaintiffs' in respect of goods manufactured by them.

3. The plaintiffs contend that one Aw Chu Kin, a Chinese in Rangoon, Burma in the year 1890 prepared a medicinal ointment. About the year 1900, his two sons by name Aw Boon Haw and Aw Boon Par decided to manufacture and market the balm under the trading name Eng Aun long in Rangoon, Burma. In this regard, the said brothers adopted a trademark consisting of the device of the Leaping Tiger and the word 'Tiger' forms part of the name of the elder brother since 'Haw' in the name Aw boon Haw means Tiger in Chinese language. The word 'Par' in the younger brother's name means leopard in Chinese. Therefore, the trademark Tiger and the device of a leaping Tiger was used in respect of Balm and oil manufactured by the said brothers in 1900 and the said trademark and labels have acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill not only in Rangoon but also in other countries including India since it was being exported to India. In 1932, a the company known as Haw Par Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., was incorporated which took over the business of the said two brothers and also the assets including the trademark. The business was therefore carried on in Singapore and exported the Balm to various countries including India until the occupation of Burma and Singapore by the Japanese Army during the II World war. After the war, it was once again being imported in India and it has become a common household item. It is contended that though the import restriction was imposed in 1958, the said goods continued to be available in India since persons travelling abroad would bring it on their return. As such, at all times, the plaintiffs' goods had tremendous reputation in India. The said trademark is stated to be registered in several countries and pending in some countries.

4. The first plaintiff is said to have taken over the business of Haw Par Brothers (Pvt.) Ltd., in respect of the said balm in the year 1969 which included all rights including the