( 1 ). This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule I and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. In this application it has been prayed that the respondent through its proprietor or partners, servants, agents, dealers, representatives and all others acting for and on its behalf be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale advertising, directly and indirectly dealing in parts and fittings of bicycles, cycles parts and other cognate under the trade mark SAINICO or any other trade mark as may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to applicant s registered trade mark SONICO. The application has been opposed by the respondent in their reply to this application.

( 2 ). Mr. Ghiraiya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff is the registered owner and proprietor of the trade mark SONICO with device of a BUST underregistration No. 234098 dated 9th March, 1966 in class-12 inrespect of bicycle and cycle parts. He furtheer submitted that the plaintiff had adopted the trade mark SONICO with device of BUST in the year 1958 and the aforesaid trade mark SONICO has been continuously used in the course of trade and thus have come about to identify and recognise as exclusively belonging to the plaintiff. Learned counsel further submitted that byvirtue of prior adoption, long and established user coupled with vast publicity given to the said trade mark, the plaintiff got the registration and exclusive right to the use of said trade mark SONICO. He further submitted that the defendant who is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of parts and fittings of the bicycles, has adopted identical and deceptively similar trade mark SAINICO. He further submitted that the defendant has adopted the above mentioned trade mark SAINICO to cause confusion and deception to pass off their goods and business as and for the goods of the plaintiff and to create animpression as its goods of bicycle parts and fittings under the trade mark SAINICO are connected with the plaintiff in one or the other manner. He, therefore, contended that the defendant should be restrained as prayed in this application.

( 3 ). Mr. Bhalerao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant raised a preliminary objection that plaintiffs and defendant both are residents of Ludhiana and no cause of action has arisen in the territorial limits of Delhi, as such this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit. He further submitted that defendant has adopted the trade mark SAINICO honestly and bonafidely knowing fully well that there was no such trade mark in use and existance in respect of the parts and fittings of cycles and they had adopted this trade mark in 1983.

( 4 ). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and I find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendant has no merits in view of the fact that the defendant has already moved. an application for registration of its trade mark SAINICO for sale of its goods through out India. Coming to the merits of the case, I find that the mark of the defendant is on the face of it deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a number of documents to show that he had adopted the trade mark SONICO in the year 1958 whereas as per averments made in the written statement the defendants had adopted the trade mark SAINICO in the year 1983. Keeping in view these facts, I am of (he opinion that the defendant must be restrained from using the trade mark SAINICO. The view I have taken finds support from a judgement of this Court reported in the case of M/s. R. P. Lock and Co. VS M/s. Sehgal Locks Company, 1988-PTC-10. In this case it was held that the trade mark HARICON was deceptively similar to the trade mark HARRISON.

( 5 ). In view of the above discussion, I restrain the respondent through its proprietor or partners or its