( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge in Suit nos. 1626 of 1983 and 1627 of 1983. both the suits were clubbed and evidence was recorded only in suit No. 1626 of 1983 titled Holiday Inns Inc vs Kapoor holiday Inn and on the strength of the evidence In the said case both the suits were disposed of by a common judgment and decree dated 21. 5. 1986. The appellants herein are defendants in suits and the respondent herein is the plaintiff.

( 2 ) THE respondent company. Holiday Inn Inc is a registered company of the United States of America and has acquired global reputation. The respondent learnt that the appellants were using the words "holiday Inn" on its visiting cards, menu cards, tariff cards, stationery and other printed materials relating to its lodgings and restaurant, towels, crockery, cutlery, key chains/rings and diverse goods relating to its lodgings and restaurant. The said use was in flagrant violation of the respondent s trade mark "holiday Inn". The respondent gave a "cease and desist notice" to the appellants, but despite the service of notice the appellants neither replied to the said notice nor complied with its requirements. By the use of the words "holiday Inn" as a part of its trading style, the appellants seek to represent to the public some connection with the respondent. According to the respondent the appellants are also passing off their business as that of the respondent or as one associated with it. In this way, the appellants are trading upon the good will and reputation enjoyed by the respondent throughout the world including India.

( 3 ) LEARNED Single Judge after carefully weighing the entire evidence and documents on record came to the conclusion that the use of the words "holiday Inn" by the appellants, particularly, in relation to the same business causes deception and confusion in the trade and is an attempt by the appellants to induce the customers to believe that the business of the appellants is the business of the respondent or that it is associated with the respondent. The Court granted the respondent a decree of perpetual injunction with costs restraining the appellants, its proprietors/partners, servants and agents from using the words "holiday Inn" or any other name or expression deceptively or otherwise similar thereto as its trading style or as a part thereof; the court also passed a decree for permanent injunction restraining the appellants, its proprietors/partners, servants and agents from using the words "holiday Inn" or any other name or expression deceptively or otherwise similar thereto in relation to its goods particularly on its visiting cards, menu cards, tariff cards, stationery and other printed materials relating to its lodgings and restaurants, towels, crockery, cutlery, key chains/rings and diverse goods relating to its lodgings and restaurants. The appellants have also been directed to render accounts to the respondent of the profits earned by them while trading in the trading style which includes the words "holiday Inn".

( 4 ) AGAINST that Judgments and decree the appellants have filed these appeals before this Court. A Division bench of this Court admitted the appeals and stayed the execution of the decree. Arguments advanced on behalf of Madhuban Holiday Inn and Kapoor Holiday Inn are identical. Therefore, we also deem it appropriate to dispose of both these appeals by a common judgment.

( 5 ) MR. J. S. ARORA, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the words "holiday Inn" are descriptive of the business of a hotel and as per settled law nobody can legitimately monopolise such words for his business.

( 6 ) IT is also submitted by Mr. Arora that in case of a trade name which consists of descriptive words even a small difference will be taken to be sufficient enough in between the trade names of the respondent and that of the appellants. If any person uses for the name of h