The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the essential features of the trademark, the similarity between marks, the likelihood of confusion, and the potential harm in cases of confusion over medicinal products.

Parties are referred to their original status.

2. Present appeal is presented by the plaintiff against the order passed below Exh. 9 in Civil Suit No. 03/2016 by the learned District Judge-1, Aurangabad on 13-7-2017.

3. The plaintiff filed suit for perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trademark and passing-off, damages etc., in which he has also applied for temporary injunction. The brief facts may be stated as follows.

4. The plaintiff, Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, is a charitable organization incorporated under the law of United States of America. The plaintiff’s Mayo Clinic is a leading internationally known medical center recognized for inter alia providing the highest quality medical care through the physician-led-team of diverse people involved providing clinical, educational, diagnostic and research services in a unified multi-campus system.

5. Plaintiff is doing its activities under the name/trade styled as “MAYO”, “MAYO CLINIC”, ‘the Triple Shield Design’ and MAYO formative trademarks are used as part of the plaintiff’s trade name and style as well as its trademarks. The trademark “MAYO” also form a key part of the domain name as plaintiff’s website www.mayoclinic.org and www.mayo.edu. Through its global activities, the plaintiff’s reputation and good will has split over to India and the plaintiff’s services and goods under the trade mark are well known amongst the public in India as a valuable sources and repository of knowledge regarding health and medicine.

6. Since 2011 to 2015, 1,930 citizens from India have visited the hospitals in Rochester, Scottsdale and Jacksonville to avail their highly acclaimed medical services, out of which more than 1000 have been unique visitors. Further the plaintiff has recorded 347 profile of Indian citizens who have enrolled in the plaintiff’s Mayo School of Continuous Professional Development and 28 Indians who had been selected to participate in Mayo Cardiovascular Continuing Education Courses. Additionally, the plaintiff’s websites have noted a progressive rise in traffic from individuals residing in India.

7. Apart from India, the plaintiff’s said trademarks are also registered or have been applied for registration in 73 countries around the world.

8. The defendants are believed to be engaged in the business of marketing and selling pharmaceuticals products under the mark “MAYO” and other MAYO formative marks. The defendant No. 3 has believed to be stopped conducting its business through this company in 2011 and incorporated defendant No. 2 to carry on its business activity. So, in short, it is the contention of the plaintiff that, the defendants are using his trade name/mark “MAYO” to introduce their products in market in India and the ordinary customer is likely to be confused about the trade name/mark and may purchase the goods under the impression that the goods are belonging to the plaintiff’s product.

9. According to the plaintiff the name/mark “MAYO” is phonetically and visually used by the defendants is similar to the trade name/mark of the plaintiff’s MAYO Foundation.

10. As against this, it is the case of the defendants that, the origin of the name is taken from “MAA YOGMAYA” which is the name of deity of the defendants.

11. Considering the evidence on record and upon hearing both the sides the learned District Judge-1 restrained the defendants from using word “MAYO”. Therefore, the present appeal.

12. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Sanjiv Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and Mr. P. M. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

13. Mr. Deshpande learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff applied for the registration of the trademark in India in the year 2011 and the defendants are using the trade name “MAYO” since 1982. Therefore, the defendants are first in time in the business. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trade name of the plaintiff’s is used by the defendan