S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J. :—-These Appeals are directed against common order dated 14th June, 1994 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Pune in respondents applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for grant of interim injunction in Civil Suits bearing Nos. 3 of 1993, 4 of 1993 and 5 of 1993 filed by the respondents herein in the Court of the District Judge, Pune at Pune. The 2nd appellant and the respondents in these appeals are common. The 1st appellant in each appeal is different. The respondents in Appeal From Order No. 1152 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 3 of 1993. The respondents in Appeal From Order No. 1153 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 and the respondents in Appeal From Order No. 1154 of 1994 are the plaintiffs in Suit No. 5 of 1993. All these suits have been filed for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants herein from using the word Kirloskar as part of the corporate name of the 1st appellant in each appeal and/or its trading style so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the goods and/or business of 1st appellant in each appeal as that of the respondents. In each of the said suits restricted to passing off action, the respondents had filed an application for grant of interim injunction. All these applications for grant of interim injunction have been disposed of by the common order dated 14th June, 1994 impugned in these appeals. By the order impugned in these appeals, pending the hearing and final disposal of the said suits, the appellants by themselves, their servants and agents and/or any other person(s) claiming by, under or through them or any of them have been restrained from using the word Kirloskar as part of corporate name of 1st appellant in each of the appeals and/or trading style so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the goods of the 1st appellant in each appeal and/or business as that of the respondents or in any way connected with the respondents. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, the same are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. Briefly stated, the respondents case as pleaded is as under:

(i) Each of the respondents is a Company duly incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and that each of them belong to well known Kirloskar Group of Companies. The word Kirloskar forms part of the corporate name of each of the respondents. The 1st respondent is the registered holder of various trade-marks under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short, the Act) and also the registered holder of the artistic word Kirloskar in English, Hindi and Marathi under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. The respondents 2 to 5 are the licensees and registered users of various trade marks and/or copyrights held, possessed and owned by the 1st respondent and are using the same in relation to Sale Promotion Campaigns of the products manufactured and marketed by them. The respondents 6 and 7 are the permitted users of the copyrights held, possessed and owned by the 1st respondent and that the said copyrights are being used by the said users in relation to the products manufactured and marketed by them.

(ii) One Laxmanrao Kashinath Kirloskar, the founder of the Kirloskar Group of Companies, commenced business of bicycle repairing in 1888 along with his brother Ramanna at Belgaum. In the year 1910, they shifted to Kundal of which name later on changed to Kirloskarwadi due to the activities of Kirloskar Group of Companies. In the year 1920, the Kirloskar brothers converted their private company into a public limited company. In the course of time, they expanded business and incorporated various companies. The word Kirloskar was adopted as trade mark and has been extensively used by various companies of Kirloskar Group. Accordingly, the word Kirloskar has become part of the corporate name of Kirloskar Group o