PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) ON 6. 9. 2006 while issuing summons ir the suit, taking cognizance of IA. No. 9988/06 filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, following ex-parte ad-interim order was passed :-

"1]. Notice returnable for 5th October, 2006.

2]. Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'loprin1 in respect of pharmaceutical products. Registration in favour of the plaintiff is since 20th september, 2000 but goods under the said trade name/mark are stated to be marketed by the plaintiff since the year 1994.

3]. Sales effective from the year 2000 onwards have been stated in para 7 of the application. The sales exceed Rs. 295 lacs per annum for each of the six years.

4]. Defendants have adopted the word/ mark 'loparin'.

5]. Objection taken by the plaintiff is to the visual and phonetic similarity in the trademark/name adopted by the defendants.

6]. A perusal of the trademark/name adopted by the defendants shows that they have inserted the letter 'a' midway between the trademark of the plaintiff. e. letter 'a' finds itself between the letters 'lop' and 'rin'.

7]. Prima facie it is a case of phonetic as well as visual similarity, tested on the prin