The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Defendants' use of deceptively similar marks, without demonstrating honest or concurrent use, and the Plaintiff's development of a 'family of marks' warranted the grant of a permanent injunction.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 1st March 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing IA No.6222 of 1989 filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant in Suit No. 2247 of 1989).

2. The aforementioned suit was filed by the Plaintiff/Appellant seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks in the device of QILLA, the words GOLDEN QILLA (word per se), LAL QILLA CHAPP (word per se), LAL QILLA (word and device mark) and NEEL QILLA in relation to the goods for which they were registered, i.e, rice. A decree of permanent injunction was also sought to restrain the Defendants/Respondents from processing, selling or offering for sale or dealing in rice or any other cognate or allied goods under the trade mark HARA QILLA or the device of QILLA or any mark or device deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s aforementioned registered trade marks.

3. In this appeal the parties are referred to by their status in the suit. Accordingly the Appellant is referred to as the Plaintiff and Respondents 1 and 2 as the Defendants 1 and 2.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that it is engaged in the selection, processing and merchandising of rice since 1952. In the year 1954 the plaintiff adopted GOLDEN QILLA (words per se) and the device of QILLA as its trade mark so as to indicate its connection in the course of trade with the goods of its selection, process and merchandise and also as a proprietor thereof. In the year 1961, it adopted LAL QILLA (words per se) and also the device of LAL QILLA as its trade mark to indicate its connection in the course of trade with the goods of its selection, manufacture and sale and also as a proprietor thereof. Likewise in 1977, it adopted NEELA QILLA (words per se) and the device of QILLA as its trade mark. According to the Plaintiff it has used the aforementioned marks continuously and extensively in the course of its trade from the dates of their respective adoption by it. Its rice products have come to be identified and recognized by the purchasing public and the trade as exclusively belonging to it. The trade marks mentioned denote to the public and the trade that they are the goods of the Plaintiff.

5. Itis asserted that by virtue of their prior adoption, long, continuous and established user coupled with the vast publicity given to its marks, the Plaintiff has acquired an exclusive right to the use thereof as a proprietor.

6. In the plaint the Plaintiff has set out the annual sales and publicity expenses figures from the year 1970-71 till 1986-87. This has shown a progressive increase.

7. According to the Plaintiff in addition to the common law rights, it also held a statutory right to the exclusive use of the aforementioned trade marks by virtue of registration granted under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 as per the

8. According to the Plaintiff the Defendant No.1 Shree Wardhman Rice & General Mills located at Panipat, Haryana is engaged in the process and merchandise of rice and the Defendant No.2, M/s. Mamraj Chuni Lal is the agent of Defendant No.1. According to the Plaintiff the Defendants have adopted an identical and/or deceptively similar mark HARA QILLA and the device of QILLA in respect of rice of their process and merchandise. It was submitted that the adoption of HARA QILLA and the device of QILLA by the Defendants is malafide, dishonest, tainted and solely with a view to infringe the aforementioned registered trade marks of the Plaintiff and to cause confusion and deception among the users and the trade and to pass off the goods and business of the Defendants as and for the goods and business of the Plaintiff. It was submitted that unwary purchasers are likely to be misled into considering the mark HARA QILLA and the device of QILLA as one of the series of the Plaintiff’s marks of GOLDEN QILLA, LAL QILLA, NEELA QILLA and device of QILLA. It is alleged that