( 1 ) 1. The Defendant in a suit for infringement and passing off is in appeal against an interlocutory order of injunction granted by the Learned Single Judge on 23rd September, 1997.

( 2 ) THE Respondent before the Court instituted a suit for injunction restraining the Appellant from in any manner using the mark "encore" or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to electrical or electronic goods including dish antennae. The action was based on a case of infringement and for passing off. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of various trademarks including the word marks Anchor, Ankur, Anchor, Ankar, Anker, Ansor and ancor. Registration has been granted to the Plaintiff in respect of goods falling in Classes 9 and 11 of the IVth Schedule to the trademark Rules in relation to a large number of electrical appliances and electronic goods. The Plaintiff was incorporated on 11th June, 1990. The trademark "anchor" which forms the subject matter of the proceedings was first adopted in the year 1963 by the predecessor of the Plaintiff which was a partnership firm. When the Plaintiff took over the business of the firm in 1990, the gross annual turnover was in excess of Rs. 50 Crores and the products manufactured and marketed under the "anchor" mark included a wide range of electrical and electronic items. Upon assignment of the mark to the Plaintiff, applications were filed before the Registrar of Trademarks for bringing the name of the Plaintiff on the record as the subsequent proprietor. The applications were allowed. In 1990, the volume of sales in respect of electrical and electronic goods on which the mark was used stood at Rs. 49. 73 Crores. An amount of Rs. 1. 19 Crores was expended in 1990 for advertisements and publicity for the mark. The Plaintiff has used the mark "anchor" either by itself or with the device of an anchor on leaflets, literature, letterheads and publicity material. The trademark of the Plaintiff is stated to have become "a household word" and the products of the Plaintiff together with the associated mark are stated to have been utilized in locations as diverse as government and public buildings, cinema halls, schools, factories and private homes.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the Plaintiffs it was in May 1992 that they learnt that the Defendant had started dealing in dish antennae under the mark "encore". A notice was addressed by the Plaintiff on 7th May, 1992 to the Defendant calling upon the Defendant to cease and desist from using the said mark. It appears that the defendant had come out with a public issue of share capital. According to the Plaintiff it received queries from several sources enquiring whether it was the Plaintiff that was associated with the issue of share capital. According to the Plaintiff, the mark "encore" is deceptively similar to the registered mark of the Plaintiff and is being used in respect of the same goods in respect of which the mark of the Plaintiff is registered. Moreover, it has been averred that when the mark "anchor" is pronounced or written in Gujarati or devanagari scripts, it appears "very close" to the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff avers that the word "anchor" forms a part of its corporate name and trading style and has been associated by traders and by members of the public, exclusively with the Plaintiff. The corporate name, according to the plaintiff, has acquired a reputation in the market and the Defendant has adopted the corporate name and style of "encore Electronics limited" which is deceptively similar, misleading and liable to cause confusion.

( 4 ) IN the affidavit in reply, the Defendant states that it engages in the manufacture of Cable T. V. Equipment and other electronic items. The Defendant had applied for registration of its trademark "encore" with the Registrar of Trademarks on 20th July, 1992. The Defendant claims to have been known as a manufacturer of Cable T. V. Equipment since 1989. According t