Devinder Gupta, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of same order passed on 18. 1. 1996 in IA 14791/91 in Suit No. 3877/91 by the learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowing the plaintiff s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale or dealing with and selling their product under the trade mark "cleanzo" or any other mark or marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff s registered trade mark CLEANZO bearing No. 335807 and also from using label similar to that of the plaintiff s label on the cartons of the products.

( 2 ) FAO (OS) 48/96 is by the plaintiff M/s Metropol India (P) Ltd. and FAO (OS) 98/96 is by the defendant Praveen Kumar Sabharwal, Sole Proprietor of M/s Praveen Industries India. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the last part of the impugned order, which has permitted the defendant to manufacture and sell its product under the name, style and trade mark Praveen CLEANJO with the rider that they will not right the word CLEANJO in isolation or in conjunction with praveen in an Oval Shape or in other shape, which may be deceptively similar to the manner in which the plaintiff is writing its trade mark. Defendant s appeal is against that part of the order which has restrained it from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale or dealing with or selling their product under the trade mark CLEANJO or any other mark or marks similar to the plaintiff s registered trade mark CLEANZO.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties were heard and suit record has been perused.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF s case is on the allegations that it is a leading manufacturer of Cleansing agents, detergents etc. and is proprietor of the trade mark CLEANZO. The same is registered in Class 3 under No. 335807 under the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act ) which is renewed upto 20th April, 1989. It is alleged that the plaintiff and its oredecessirs-in-interest had been using the trade mark CLEANZO since 1947. Plaintiff also claims to be the owner of copyright bearing registration No. A-11008/74 under the Copyright Act and in respect of the art work depicted on label titled CLEANZO. Copyright is claimed to be registered on 15. 4. 1974 in the name of Metropole Corporation India and the said Copyright is claimed to have been assigned in the name of the plaintiff on 10. 7. 1991.

( 5 ) IT is claimed that in March, 1991 the plaintiff noticed that the defendant had brought in the market a Cleanser under the mark CLEANJO and that the product was being sold in tins of identical size, background, colour, scheme, lay out and get up with same pictorial devices, though in a changed arrangement and order. Even direction for use were copied verbatim. On a complaint being filed by the plaintiff, the premises of the defendant and its two dealers were raided. Offending goods were seized. Defendant along with the said dealers were arrested. The case is stated to be still pending in a criminal court. It is alleged that the defendant again started selling the same goods in the same town with the same wrapper and also filed an application for registration of the word marked cleanjo in Class 5 and filed an application under Sections 32, 42 and 56 of the Act seeking rectification of the plaintiff s trade mark CLEANZO. Adoption by the defendant of the offending trade mark and the offending colour schemes, label, get up etc. is to cash upon the plaintiff s name, reputation, goodwill and long standing and amounts to passing of its goods by the defendant as that of the plaintiff s.

( 6 ) IN this background permanent injunction is claimed in the suit and simultaneously an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was moved for interim relief.

( 7 ) DEFENDANT s opposition to plaintiff s suit is on the ground that it is a prior user and first adapter of the trade mark CLEANJO in respect of Neptha Deodorant and Clean

Click Here to Read the rest of this document