The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish reputation and goodwill in connection with a trademark to succeed in a claim for infringement or passing off.

( 1 ) THE present order disposes of I. A. No. 6394/2003 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC and i. A. No. 6584/2003 filed by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151, CPC. By I. A. No. 6394/2003, the plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendant, pending adjudication of the suit, from directly or indirectly, selling alcoholic beverages under the trade mark "superior 5000" or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the trademark "haywards 5000 SUPER STRONG beer" amounting to infringing of plaintiffs trade mark No. 436744 and/or from reproducing, printing, publishing, selling or offering for sale any product with any label or packaging which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs "haywards 5000" packaging and labelling, further injunction is sought restraining the defendant from passing off its goods as the goods of the plaintiff by using packaging and labelling deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark "haywards 5000".

( 2 ) THE suit and the aforesaid injunction application came up for hearing on 29. 5. 2003, on which date the following ad-interim injunction was granted:

"accordingly till the next date of hearing the defendant, their partners, proprietors, officers, servants and representatives are restrained from manufacturing, exporting, selling and offering for sale directly or indirectly dealing in beer or any other alcoholic beverages with the trade mark having the digit "5000" or any other identical or marks deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff, "haywards 5000 Super Strong Beer" and also from using the labels and packaging with such infringing mark. "the defendant had lodged a caveat and pursuant thereto, as per the record of the suit, copy of plaint, injunction application and all documents relied by it upon were supplied to the Counsel for the defendant on 28. 5:2003 and plaintiff had taken out a notice of motion intimating the defendant that the matter would be listed before the Court on 29. 5. 2003. Indeed, the matter came to be listed before this Court on 29. 5. 2003. Taking notice of the caveat, this Court recorded in the order that at the first call, request was made on behalf of the defendant for the matter to be passed over and none had appeared at the second call. The order records that when the matter was taken up for the second time, summons were issued to the defendant in the suit and notice was issued in LA. No. 6394/2003. As noted above, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was also granted.

( 3 ) AS per the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 is in the business of manufacturing of alcoholic beverages for the last 100 years. It has been selling, alcoholic beverages under various distinctive trade marks such as ROYAL challenge, PREMIUM LAGER BEER, HAYWARDS LAGER BEER, haywards DIET, HAYWARDS 5000 AND HAYWARDS 2000 etc. which according to the plaintiff No. 1 has become synonymous with the Alcoholic beverage industry. Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged, inter alia, in the business of marketing of alcoholic beverages and is a licensee/permitted user for various trade marks of the plaintiff No. 1 including "haywards 5000 SUPER STRONG BEER". In the year 1983, plaintiff No. 1 claims to have used the trade mark "haywards 5000 super STRONG BEER" for the first time and on 19th April, 1985 it filed an application for registration of the said trade mark "haywards 5000 SUPER strong BEER" in class 32 in respect of beer in the trade Marks Registry. The said trade marks was duly registered under No. 436744 in Part "a" of the Register. On 19th April, 1999, the said registration was renewed for a period of seven years. Documents have been filed insupport of the above averments made by the plaintiffs and for the record it may be noted that these have not been denied by the defendant. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the beer sold by them under the trade mark "haywards 500