ORDER :

1. The defendant herein is pressing for framing of issue as regards validity of registration of trademark of the plaintiff ‘STIMULIV’ as a word mark and also as a label mark, on the basis of pleadings incorporated in the written statement, particularly in paragraphs 18 and 41 thereof. According to the defendant, the said pleadings are sufficient to meet the statutory requirement under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (Trade Marks Act) as regards prima facie tenability of the registration of the plaintiff’s trademarks.

2. It is a matter of record that, at the behest of the plaintiff, by an order dated 30.04.2024, this Court (Coram : Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, J.) has already framed an issue as regards the validity of registration of the defendant’s trademark ‘STIMULET’, on the touchstone of the requirement of prima facie tenability under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. It is obvious that the rival trademarks i.e. ‘STIMULIV’ of the plaintiff and ‘STIMULET’ of the defendant are both registered trademarks. Since the framing of such an issue has been vehemently opposed on behalf of the plaintiff, this Court is required to consider the rival submissions