( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court whereby an order of injunction issued against the defendant has been made absolute and the defendant"s application under Order 39 Rule 4 dismissed. The controversy arises in the following circumstances :

( 2 ) THE plaintiff respondent company was established by Dr. K. Anji Reddy in the year 1984 to deliver innovative pharmaceutical health care solutions. With the passage of time, the company is alleged to have emerged as India"s second largest pharmaceutical company with the distinction of being the only pharma company from the Asia Pacific region to be listed in the New York Stock exchange. It is also alleged to have set up Dr. Reddy"s Research Foundation to supplement the plaintiff"s research and development capabilities in association with world renowned organizations in that field. It claims to have a turn over running into millions of dollars with world class expertise in development and manufacture of organic intermediaries. It has wholly owned subsidiaries in USA, european Union, United Kingdom, France, Singapore etc. It claims to have carved a niche for itself in branded finished dosages market and is treated as a world leader in pharmaceutical formulations. It has adopted a logo comprising a symbol representing a man with an outstretched arm and the word mark "dr. Reddy" which was created for and on behalf of the plaintiff by M/s Oglivy and Mather for a valuable consideration.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff"s further case is that its trademark "dr. Reddy" is recognized throughout the world and appears on packaging of all products as part of the logo with the result that adoption of "dr. Reddy" or "reddy" by any third party as a trade name or as a trading style for any products particularly in the field of pharmaceuticals is bound to make any consumer particularly consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection to believe that the products originate from the plaintiff. The defendant appellant before us is, according to the plaintiff, a company that was initially carrying on the business of purchase and supply of active pharmaceutical ingredients which it was purchasing from the plaintiff for supply to various manufacturers since 1997. The defendant was at no stage creating or marketing its own finished dosages brand. Its activities were only in the nature of distributor/agent supplying the active pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured by the plaintiff or formulations without changing the packaging or the label. The result was that the defendant"s business activities were in no way detrimental to the plaintiff, nor did the plaintiff raise any objection to the use of Reddy Pharmaceutical Ltd. as the name of the defendant company.

( 4 ) IN September, 2003, the plaintiff claims to have received information that the defendant appellant had gone beyond its initial area of operation of being a mere supplier of active pharmaceutical ingredients. It had entered the field of marking pharmaceutical preparations in finished dosages forms under different brand names taking advantage of the goodwill that had accrued to the plaintiff"s trademark "dr. Reddy". The plaintiff"s case is that the packing of the product marketed by the defendant clearly showed that the defendant intended to ride upon the success and reputation of the plaintiff in the field of pharmaceutical preparations by dishonestly adopting the packing in such a way as to make any consumer believe that the products originate from the plaintiff. The plaintiff has accused the defendant appellant of dishonesty and made specific averments to that effect which according to the plaintiff establishes the malafide and dishonest intentions of the defendant. Efforts to amicably resolve the issue having failed, the plaintiff filed OS No. 2194/2003 alleging that the continued use of the name Reddy Pharmaceutical Ltd. by the defendant appellant as also the use of a deceptive