( 1 ) BY this application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the defendant, during. pendency of the suit, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in Diesel Oil Engines and parts thereof under the trade mark "sonamarshal" and/or any other trade mark identical and/or deceplively similar to the registered trade mark and label entitled "field MARSHAL" of the plaintiff and from passing off its goods as and for those of the plaintiff s goods under the said mark/label "sonamarshal"and under the trading style of "s. M. . h1 IA 8027/89 in S. 2877/89. DIESELS".

( 2 ) THIS application has been filed along with the suit for perpetual in junction restraining infringement of trade mark, trade name, copyright, passing off and for rendition of accounts etc.

( 3 ) THE relevant facts set out in the application as well as in the suit are that the plaintiff company since the year 1963 has been carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting of Diesel Oil Engines and parts thereof (not for land vehicles), Centrifugal pumps, electric motors and parts thereof etc. and since then they have been using the trade mark FIELD MARSHAL for their aforesaid goods. The trade mark FIELD MARSHAL of the plaintiff company is duly registered under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the particulars of which have been given in the plaint and this trade mark has been renewed from time to time. The label of the plaintiff company field MARSHAL is also registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff has taken much pains to popularise the FIELD MARSHAL trade mark and has spent enormous sums of money on its advertisement and publicity throughout by various means of advertisement and publicity and on account of superior quality of their FIELD MARSHAL product which they have been selling for more than two decades, they have acquired unique reputation and enviable goodwill in public and trade. The plaintiffs sales are in crores and crores of rupees and publicity expenses are in lakhs and lakhs of rupees. In July 1989, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant had also started very recently manufacturing and marketing Diesel Oil Engines bearing identical and deceptively and confusingly similar trade mark SONAMARSHAL in respect of its products. The trade mark SONAMARSHAL as adopted and used by the defendant which contains the key and memorable part MARSHAL of the plaintiff, registered as well as long used trade mark FIELD MARSHAL was practically identical and deceptively similar to the registered trade mark FIELD MARSHAL of the plaintiff. The defendant started its business of manufacturing and trading under the identical and confusingly similar trade name/trading style to read as S. M. DIESELS in addition to such colourable imitation of the trade mark, i. e. SONAMARSHAL in respect of similar goods not as the matter of co-incidence or accident but with deliberate and wilful attempt to pass off its goods as and for the real goods of the plaintiff and thereby to have the illegal and wrongful gains of the plaintiff s trade reputation and business goodwill. The purchasers are normally illiterate persons - mechanics and servants from the villages - who call the engine oils by the name of MARSHAL and, therefore, confusion and deception is inevitable due to close identity and deceptive similarity of the trade mark and trade name of the plaintiff and of the defendant. In these facts and circumstances, according to the plaintiff, because of the unlawful activities of the defendant, the plaintiff has suffered huge losses and has caused damage to the well established reputation and, therefore, the plaintiff has been constrained to file the present suit and the present application for interim injunction.

( 4 ) IN the written statement filed by the defendant, certain objections have been taken tha