The court emphasizes the need for a prima facie case and balance of convenience in trademark infringement cases, and highlights the importance of maintaining sales records and expeditious decision by the Registrar of Trademarks.

( 1 ) PLAINTIFF-COMPANY has filed this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction for restraining the defendants, their servants, reatailers, stockists, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in pharmaceutical preparations under the trademark `revox or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark `rivox of the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of the application are that the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, passing off, damages and delivery up etc. against the defendants with the averments and allegations that it is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceuticals for the last about 16 years and is a reputed company in the pharmaceutical trade. Out of many well known trademarks of the plaintiff-company, the trademark `rivox was adopted and used by the plaintiff since the year 1990 in respect of a life saving drug, i. e. `amoxycilline . The plaintiff has also applied for registration of the trademark under application No. 877264 in Class-5 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations and he hopes that he will be granted the registration. The plaintiff also claims to have obtained the FDA approval pertaining to the trademark before manufacturing and marketing the drug and have been using the said trademark since 1990 continuously, regularly and extensively and without any interruption in relation to the pharmaceutical product and `rivox has acquired a unique reputation and goodwill in the eyes of medical professionals, pharmaceutical industry and general public at large and the said drug is exclusively associated with the plaintiff.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that during the month of September, 2000, the plaintiff learnt that defendant has introduced a similar product bearing the trademark `revox which is almost identical trademark and/or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. By adopting and using the said trademark and marketing its products under the said trademark, the defendant is passing off and is likely to pass off their product as that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff served a notice dated 25th September, 2000 to defendant No. 1 requesting it not to use the said trademark but defendant No. 1 vide its reply dated 27th February, 2001 refused to accede to the request of the plaintiff and raised the defence that the two trademarks `rivox and `revox are different and distinct and there was no scope of confusion in the market. It is also alleged that due to the adoption and use of the trademark `revox in respect of the similar product, the plaintiff has suffered damages and is likely to suffer further damages and, therefore, there is a need to restrain the defendant from manufacturing and passing off their product under the trade name `revox . Besides, it is stated that the product which is being manufactured and marketed by the defendant under `revox is a multi-vitamin while that manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff is a life saving antibiotic drug and, therefore, there is a great danger to the life of the patients who might use the product of the defendant instead of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for a permanent injunction, damages and for delivery up of the said products and its destruction.

( 4 ) THE suit is being contested by the defendants by filing their written statement raising preliminary objections that defendant No. 1 has adopted the trademark `revox for a pharmaceutical preparation which is a composition of Beta Carotene with Vitamin `c , `e and minerals ever since March 1998 and has applied for its registration on 3rd April, 1998 vide application No. 797488 but before doing so, the defendant had taken a search report for the trademark `revox from the Trademarks registry and