The plaintiff No.2 is a partnership firm and a sister concern of plaintiff No.1 which is a private limited company. The plaintiff No.1 is manufacturing medicinal products under the licence of plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit claiming that their registered trademark “IBULMOL” bearing No.999809 in class5 has been infringed by the defendants by manufacturing the product under the trademark “IBUNMOL”. The plaintiffs have also prayed for an order restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling their product by passing it of as that of the plaintiffs' product. The plaintiffs have also taken out notice of motion for an injunction during the pendency of the suit restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiffs' product and passing of their product as that of the plaintiffs' product. The plaintiffs had also moved this Court for ad-interim order. This Court vide order dated 22nd June 2006 granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) except the bracketed portion, prayer clause (c) against defendant Nos.1 and 2 and prayer clauses (d) and (e).

2. The motion was heard finally. Heard Dr.Saraf, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in support of motion and Shri Parikh, learned counsel for the defendants.

3. Dr.Saraf, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs by their innovation have coined the trademark “IBULMOL” in December 1999. It is submitted that an innovative carton, in which the tablets are packed, was created by the plaintiffs' artist, namely, Shri Sachin Chheda. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs' trademark was registered on 30th August 2005 with effect from 28th March 2001. It is submitted that on 8th April 2005, the plaintiffs' copyright of the design on the carton was registered by the Deputy Registrar of the Copyrights. It is the case of the plaintiffs that initially the product was manufactured by plaintiff No.2 till 2003 and that from 2003 the plaintiff No.1, which is a sister concern of plaintiff No.2, is manufacturing the said product under the licence of plaintiff No.2. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have received substantial goodwill in the market and have sold the said product as per the sales certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant. Dr.Saraf also submitted that the plaintiffs have invested substantial amount in advertising their product. It is submitted that the plaintiffs received a letter from one of their buyers in Nigeria on 25th April 2006 stating that a product having similar trademark to that of the plaintiffs' product, namely, IBUNMOL with similar packing was sold in the market and, as such, the plaintiffs had issued cease and desist notice to the defendants. Since the defendants failed to desist from imitating the plaintiffs' product, the suit as aforesaid was required to be filed. The learned counsel submits that since the plaintiffs are the owner of the registered trademark, they have exclusive rights to use the same. It is submitted that the defendants, who are pirators, cannot be allowed to imitate the plaintiffs' product and sell it by passing of in the market as that of the product of the plaintiffs. In reply to the contention of the defendants that trademark is common to trade and that the mark is extensively used in the market, it is submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that it is not sufficient to prove that the mark is registered but it is necessary to prove that it is actually and extensively used. The learned counsel further submitted that the defendants have produced various fabricated documents to show that the similar cartons were being used in the market prior to that of the plaintiffs. He submits that in so far as reliance on document of Shreechem Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. is concerned, they have addressed a letter to plaintiff No.2 stating therein that they tried to export the goods in the name of the plaintiffs and they also tendered apology. He further submits th