( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of plaintiff s application under Order 39 rules I and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, being IA No-6215 of 19990, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling or offering for sale and from using in any manner whatsoever, the trade mark tisco" or "fisco" or any other mark deceptively and confusingly similar to Trade Mark TISCO of the plaintiff in relation to channels and application of defendants 2 and 5 under Order 39 rule 4 being I. A. No. 8804 of 1990, for vacation of ex pane interim order dated August 8,1990 whereby the defendants were restrained from using the Trade Mark TISCO or FISCO in relation to the aforesaid product.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the questions argued at the bar it will be necessary to set out the relevant facts as detailed in the pleadings of the partics.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff company was established 80 years ago and has been engaged in the manufacture and marketing of iron and steel and its derivative products including products like channels. These products are being sold under the trade mark "tisco". This trade mark has been registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the Act ), being Nos-8710 (registered on November 25,1942) and 143447 (registered on May 4,1950 ). As explained in the plaint,in the trade mark "tisco", "t" stands for Tata, i stands for Iron, s stands for Steel and co stands for Company. According to the plaintiff the business is being run for a very long time and the plaintiff has acquired high reputation and goodwill in the market. In order to build up the business the products of the plaintiff have been extensively advertised and the total amount spent on advertisement in respect of its products under the said trade mark have been Rs. 4 crores from the period April 1986 to March 1989,avers the plaintiff. The plaint discloses that the total sale of the plaintiff s goods from April 1986 to March 1989 was Rs. 60 crores which included the sale of channels also.

( 4 ) M/s. ISPAT Udyog, defendant No. 2 based in Khanna,district Ludhiana (Punjab)is a partnership concern consisting of defendants 3 to 5. The further case of the plaintiff is that defendants 2 to 5 are using trade mark "tisco" and "fisco" in relation to their channels with a view to cash on its reputation in violation of plaintiff s trade mark TISCO and to confuse and deceive the consumers so as to pass off their channels as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff avers that in Delhi the sales of Channels manufactured by defendant No. 2 are being effected through M/s. Mahavir Steels,defendant No. 1. The plaintiff maintains that in mark "fisco" the letter f is nothing but a distorted t meant to cause deception and confusion to bolster up sales. On discovery of aforesaid alleged acts of infringement and passing off on the part of the defendants, the plaintiff has filed the suit in question praying, inter alia, that the defendants be restrained by means of a permanent injunction from using trade mark "tisco" and "fisco" in relation to channels or any other mark similar to the trade mark "tisco" of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also seeks a permanent injunction restraining the said defendants from passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff.

( 5 ) IN the written statement filed by defendant No. I it is denied that the said defendant was selling any channels except those manufactured by the plaintiff-company. Defendants 2 to 5 in their written statement have taken up number of pleas to counter the claim of the plaintiff. According to the said defendants the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the defendants have neither sold nor offered for sale the channels within the jurisdiction of this court. It is averred that the mark of the plaintiff is common to trade and number of firms/companies are using the trade mark ending with ISCO in respect of channels and other items li