( 1 ) IA No. 6059/2002 is an application filed by the plaintiffs under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, praying for an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from importing, sourcing, manufacturing, distributing, supplying, offering for sale or dealing in ophthalmic glass blanks/lenses bearing "two ribs" design which have not been sourced from the plaintiffs, and also from passing off counterfeit "two ribs" products as those of the plaintiffs till the disposal of this suit. It is also prayed that the defendants be restrained by an ad-interim injunction from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in the industrial drawings in the manufacture of ophthalmic lenses bearing "two ribs" design which is a three dimensional re-production. IA No. 7084/2002 is an application filed by defendant No. l for restraining the plaintiffs from issuing any threats/communications to the dealers/business associates of the defendants till the application for stay is decided by the Court.

( 2 ) THE facts, relevant for the disposal of the aforesaid two applications, briefly stated, are that the plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the defendants alleging that the plaintiff no. l is an American Company which manufactures and sells ophthalmic 651 glass blanks used in vision corrective spectacles since 1957. It is stated to be a world renewed company and plaintiff No. 2 is its subsidiary. Plaintiff no. 3 in which the plaintiff No. 2 holds 99. 95% of the stake is manufacturing ophthalmic glass blanks including photo chronic glass blanks which are marketed worldwide. It has been granted a certificate by Registrar of companies for establishing its business place in India. The plaintiff No. 1, by virtue of corporate relationship,. exercises control over the use of trade marks and other intellectual property rights owned by plaintiff No. 3. The plaintiff No. 3 has a branch office in India but currently, it has no manufacturing or other facility in India for the manufacture of photo chromic ophthalmic glass blanks with edge markings. These are manufactured by plaintiff No. 1 but marketed in India by plaintiff No. 3 through its branch office.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, in the year 1964, the plaintiff No. 1 invented photo chromic glass which was launched few years later and commenced manufacturing of photo chromic glass blanks. The trade marks applications, as mentioned in para 10 of the plaint were filed by plaintiff no. l in relation to photo chromic blanks some of which were registered and some are pending. However, the registrations have been obtained in several other jurisdictions of the world. According to the plaintiffs, the ophthalmic blanks manufactured by the plaintiffs are used by the opticians for preparing the vision corrective spectacles. The packing material had the name of the manufacturer but the blanks did not bear the plaintiffs brand name and as such, there always existed immense scope for production and marketing of counterfeit blanks/lenses and passing off inferior goods as those of the well-known manufacturers. In 1976 the plaintiffs found that loose pieces of counterfeit lenses were being supplied to the opticians as emanating from plaintiff No. l and as such, it addressed to the problem and set upon a task to devise a method for distinguishing its products from those of the other manufacturers. The in-house research of the plaintiff No. 1 came up with an ingenious method of distinguishing its products by engraving fine lines on the outer periphery of the finished blanks/lenses protruding mildly which were referred to as "edge lungs", "lines" or "ribs". These provide ready and easy means to the wholesalers and opticians to distinguish plaintiffs products bearing ribs as compared to the products of the other manufacturers which would not have ribs but would have plain or smooth periphery/circumference. Accordingly, since 1976 the plaintiffs commenced man