Delay in filing a suit for trademark infringement does not automatically amount to waiver, acquiescence, or estoppel. The court must consider the circumstances of each case, including the plaintiff's conduct and the defendant's actions.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs claiming themselves to be the owners of the trade marks "revlon", "charlie" and "intimate" for cosmetics, perfumery, essential oils, hair and toiletries, etc. , have filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner manufacturing and selling the perfumes, toiletries, etc. or any other product bearing the aforesaid trade marks or any other mark deceptively similar to the same. Certain other reliefs have also been claimed in the suit. The facts in short relevant for decision of this application are:

( 2 ) THAT the plaintiffs have alleged to have coined the trade mark "revlon" using the same as the key portion of their trading style and got it registered for various goods in the United States of America and many other countries of the world. Plaintiff states that it deals in cosmetics, perfumery and toiletries, etc. which are mostly used by ladies. In the year 1963, they opened the Revlon Research Centre in New York with highly qualified and scientific staff which today has more than 110 physicians, chemists and other technicians. This was done due to their dedication towards advanced research in the cosmetic industry. The plaintiffs are very concerned that the goods produced by them and their associate Companies, are safe and protect the skin and other parts of the body and that the skin or other parts of the body do not experience any adverse effect. The trade mark "revlon" is allegedly used extensively in many countries of the world including India in respect of perfumes, cosmetics, toiletries, etc. and instated tobe house mark of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claimed to be the registered proprietor of the following marks :

1. Trade mark "intimate" under No. 188919 as of 5th February, 1959; 2. Trade mark "revion Formula ZP11" under No. 229004 as of 21st May, 1965. 3. Trade mark "charlie" registered under No. 369145 as of 2nd December, 1980.

( 3 ) IT is alleged that though there had been a ban on the import of cosmetics in India since 1975, however, the advertisements of the products of the plaintiffs with the mark "revlon" had been appearing in different magazines circulated in India. The products are also stated to have been imported in India for sale to diplomats. It is also stated that the products of the plaintiffs bearing the aforesaid trade marks were freely available in duty free shops in India and even ITDC had been importing these products for sale in their duty free shops in Delhi, Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. The word "revlon" allegedly denotes and connotes the cosmetics and fragrances manufactured, sold and offered for sale by the plaintiffs and its associate Companies in India and other parts of the world and the same are manufactured under the strict supervision of experts who look after quality, control, research and development for maintaining their standards.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is a firm of which defendants 2 and 3 are the partners whereas defendant No. 4 is stated to be an associate firm of defendants 1 to 3. It is alleged that defendants 1 to 3 also dealing in manufacture and sale of cosmetics, perfumes and fragrances were manufacturing and selling their products in cans and containers on which the plaintiffs trade marks were printed. The user of the plaintiffs trade marks "revlon", "intimate" and "charlie" by the defendants is alleged to be infringing the plaintiffs registered trade marks as not only that the containers and cans of the defendants looks like the plaintiffs but also they were written in exactly the same style of lettering as the plaintiffs have been doing. The defendants containers allegedly have false descriptions upon them and it is alleged that by using the words "revlon"/"intimate" they were deceiving the public by making them to believe that the goods they were selling were the goods of the plaintiffs and that they have connection and collaboration with the plaintiffs which in fact was not true. It is also al