Sanjib Banerjee, J.

1. The rhinoceros is in the court: not to protest its shrinking natural habitat as it has no voice to do so; but only by its shorter, more-endearing name. And even as the parties jostle in the reflected glory of the majestic rhino, the name itself threatens to be a bull in the China shop of trademark law.

2. The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of December 9, 2015 by which the appellant has been restrained from manufacturing, selling or distributing or advertising or dealing with cement under the mark ‘Rhino’ in a particular colour scheme and get-up and also from infringing the contesting respondents’ mark of ‘Rhino’. In addition, the appellant has also been restrained from passing off cement under the mark ‘Rhino in sacks with the red, black and white colour scheme or get-up similar to the contesting respondents’. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have a cross-objection to the extent that such respondents were found not to have made out a case under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and to the extent that further orders sought by such respondents as plaintiffs were declined.

3. The appellant has started selling cement in gunny bags and