A proprietor of a trademark who has acquired statutory right to it by registration under the Copyright Act, 1957, is entitled to an interim injunction to prevent infringement of the trademark and copyright by a subsequent user.

( 1 ). I have heard arguments for deciding this application.

( 2 ). The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiff, who is proprietor of M/s. Punjab Flour Mills, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Maida, Suji, Atta and Bran since March, 1982. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark Lotus Brand with device of Lotus in respect of the aforesaid goods and has been continuously using the said trade mark with such device since March, 1982 onwards and the plaintiff is stated to have filed an application for getting the trade mark with said device registered in its name on January 17, 1983, which applica- tion is still pending. The Lotus label with device of Lotus already stands registered in the name of the plaintiff under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. So, it is pleaded that the plaintiff has acquired statutory right to the use of the said trade mark and the device and the same has become distinctive with the goods of the plaintiff on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user. It is pleaded that the plaintiff has built up a valuable trade under the said trade mark on account of high quality of goods marketed by the plaintiff under the said trade mark. Plaintiff stated to have extensively advertised the said trade mark in newspapers and magazines and by other modes and is stated to have incurred heavy expenses in that regard since 1982.

( 3 ). It was alleged that the defendants have adopted the said trade mark of the plaintiff recently and in order to take undue advantage of the plaintiff s high reputation in the trade have started marketing their goods which are of low quality in thmarket and unwary purchasers are bound to be deceived in purchasing the goods of the defendants under the impression that they belong to the plaintiff. It is pleaded that the defendants have no right to use the said trade mark with the device of Lotus flower in respect of their similar type of goods and thus the plaintiff filed the suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the said trade mark in respect of their goods. Then, the other consequential reliefs are also sought regarding rendition of accounts and delivering up of the impugned finished and unfinished goods and the trade mark and the device of Lotus used on cartons etc.

( 4 ). Along with the plaint the plaintiff filed the present application seeking interim injunction in the similar manner till the disposal of the suit and ex parte ad interim injunction has been granted which is still in force.

( 5 ). Defendants have contested the suit as well as the application pleading that the said trade mark lotus and the device of white Lotus flower already stands registered in the name of other persons in the record of the Trade Marks Registry and the plaintiff being the pirator of the said trade mark is not entitled to obtain any relief of injunction in respect of the same against the defendants. It is also pleaded that this particular trade mark is being commonly used by the other manufacturers and thus the plaintiff has no exclusive right to use the said trade mark and in part 4 details were given of the applications pending with the Trade Mark Registry for registration of trade mark filed by different parties and also particulars were given that this trade mark stands registered in the name of M. Shah and Company, Baroda and also with Pure Pood Producing Company, Calcutta. It is pleaded that as the plaintiff is not registered owner of the said trade mark, hence, the plaintiff has no right to obtain any relief of injunction restraining the defendants from using the said trade mark and the device.

( 6 ). In the replication the plaintiff denied that the plaintiff is pirator of the said trade mark and the device. Plaintiff denied that this trade mark stands registered in the name of any other company. Plaintiff also denied that this is a common trade mark being used by diff