The main legal point established is the court's affirmation of the permissibility of using a trademark for export trade under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, and its jurisdiction to issue anti-suit injunctions and enforce status quo orders.

B. N. CHATURVEDI, J.

( 1 ) AT loggerheads, in these proceedings, are the members of same family, who would have, perhaps, been well advised to strive to sort out amicably their ongoing dispute over use of trademark "kangaro" instead of slugging it out by entangling themselves in multifarious litigious bouts.

( 2 ) THE origin of present proceedings can be traced to an injunction order passed in CS (OS) No. 156/2004, filed by the petitioners, inter alia seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the trademark "kangaro", which was claimed to have fallen to the share of petitioner No. 1 by virtue of a family settlement dated 10th / 14th April, 1995. The aforesaid suit was filed before the District Court, Ludhiana, on 7th january, 1997, wherein after hearing the parties an order to the following effect was passed :"the application under Section 8 of the New Arbitration Act has been dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 claims that he is the registered owner of Trade Mark Kangaru. Plaintiff No. 1 claims that he is using the same as owner. Let status quo regarding use of trade mark be maintained and w. s. be filed on 10. 1. 1997".

( 3 ) APART from the aforesaid suit, two other suits being CS (OS)No. 157/2004 and CS (OS) No. 155/2004, between the parties, were also filed before the District Court, Ludhiana. Also, a rectification petition bearing CO no. 4/1997 was filed by the petitioners before this Court. The above suits pending with the District Court, Ludhiana were, under an order dated 8th september, 2003 of the Supreme Court, transferred to this court to be heard and tried alongwith CO No. 4/1997.

( 4 ) THE status quo order dated 7. 1. 1997, passed in suit No. 156/2004, continues to operate till date enabling thereby the parties to do their business by using the trademark "kangaro".

( 5 ) THE petitioners exported a consignment of their goods under the trademark "kangaro" to Dubai in September 2006 which was, on a complaint by the respondents stating the same to be counterfeit goods, seized by the Customs authorities at Dubai. Consequent upon such seizure, the respondents were directed vide court attachment petition No. 5071/2006 to furnish a bank guarantee to the tune of AED 2,00,000 (UAE Dirham 2,00,000 only) encashable on first return demand in the event of respondents failing to fulfill the terms and conditions of the contract. According to the respondents, under the laws of UAE, they are under a legal obligation to prosecute the proceedings with due diligence failing which the seized goods may be released and the bank guarantee furnished by them liable to encashment. The matter before UAE court is now stated to be fixed for 19th December, 2006 when the respondents are required to file their reply and supporting evidence in view of the defense/counter statement and the evidence filed on behalf of the petitioners. Apart from seizure of the petitioners' goods at Dubai, on a similar complaint by the respondents, their another consignment exported to Sri Lanka has also been seized.

( 6 ) THE petitioners complain that the respondents got their consignments seized at Dubai and Sri Lanka by misrepresenting, in concealment of and contrary to the dictate of the status quo order, that the same constituted counterfeit goods knowing it fully well that under the status quo order, they were entitled to use the trademark "kangaro" in relation to goods so exported. It is pleaded that inspite of being injuncted by virtue of status quo order from interfering with their use of trademark "kangaro", the respondents, in defiance of such order got the petitioners' consignments to Dubai and Sri Lanka seized and are now in the process of prosecuting their action for destruction of the seized consignment, before the Dubai Court.

( 7 ) FACED with the situation as aforesaid, the petitioners filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2 A CPC read with Section 151 CPC and Section 2 (a) and (b) rea