The liberal interpretation of pleadings, the requirement to state facts constituting the cause of action, and the availability of civil remedies, including injunction, under the Copyright Act 1957 and the Trade Marks Act 1999.

1) Both the appeals are admitted. By consent, notice after admission made returnable forthwith and both the sides are heard for final disposal.

2) The appeals are filed against the orders made by the District Court under the provision of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code in the suits filed by the present appellant in respect of its rights under the Copyright Act 1957 and under the Trade Marks Act 1999. Respondents, defendants of both the proceedings had filed applications for rejection of the plaint and these applications are allowed.

3) The plaintiff is a cooperative sugar factory and it is in the business of distillery, manufacture and supply of country liquor etc. It is the case of the plaintiff that since the year 1979 it is manufacturing country liquor in the brand name "Bhingari Santra". It is the case of the plaintiff that it owns this trade mark. It is the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1986 it got prepared a deign for the label for aforesaid brand from one concern, M/s Sharma Fine Arts. It is contended that on the basis of the design prepared, which is of artistic nature having different colours and things in it, a label was prepared and that label is being used by plaintiff since 1986. It is the case of the plaintiff that it has registered this label under Trade Marks Act 1958 and that was done for the first time in the year 1996. It is contended that registration was continued and it was renewed from time to time and is registered under Trade Marks Act 1999 also. In the plaint, the particulars of the sales of the aforesaid brand since the year 1986 till the year 2010-11 are given by the plaintiff. Claim with regard to acquisition of good will of this brand is also made.

4) It is the case of the plaintiff that when some manufactures had applied for approval and registration of their trade marks which were similar to the aforesaid trade mark of the plaintiff, plaintiff had taken objections before the authority of Excise Department and it had filed suits also against many such manufacturers. In the pleading the plaintiff has given particulars of those matters.

5) It is the case of the plaintiff that in Trade Mark Suit No.5/2010 filed by the plaintiff against one manufacture Konkan Agro Marine Industries Private Limited (KAMIPL) in Nagpur Court this manufacture supplied information that this brand name and label were being used by many other manufacturers. It is contended that in the said suit the defendants produced specimen of those labels and they are collected by the plaintiff. It is contended that said defendants had filed affidavit dated 17-2-2011 in support of this contention.

6) It is the case of the plaintiff that from information supplied in Trade Mark Suit No.5/2010 by the defendant, plaintiff realised that the defendant from present Trade Mark Suit No.3/2011 was using similar label and it was manufacturing country liquor by using trade name "Minakshi Santra". It is contended that in the said suit information was given against the defendant from Trade Mark Suit No.4/2011 also that they were using similar label and they were manufacturing country liquor under names "Militry Santra" and "Santra 5000".

7) In the two suits (Trade Mark Suit No.3/2011 and Trade Mark Suit No.4/2011) plaintiff had produced copies of labels collected by it from Trade Mark Suit No.5/2010 and plaintiff had produced label which it was using. Copy of label of plaintiff and certificate of registration under Trade Mark Act on the basis of this label are produced by plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that there is similarity in the labels of plaintiff and the labels of the defendants from the two suits and customers will be definitely deceived due to this similarity.

8) It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 from Trade Mark Suit No.4/2011 viz Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicates Pvt. Ltd. and its group of companies viz. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd.(defendant from Suit No.3/2011) and Subhash Liquors Pvt. Ltd. ar