1. These two Appeals have been heard together as per the request of learned counsel for the parties. The Appellant is the Plaintiff; the Respondents in the Appeals are the Defendants in the Suit. FAO (OS) 395/2002 is directed against the decision of the Learned Single Judge in IA No. 4197/2002 in Suit No. 882/2002, passed on September 27, 2002. The operative part of the Order reads as follows:- “Consequently, I restrain the defendants from using the trade mark House of Atlas or any other mark which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark Atlas, in respect of bicycles and bicycle parts till the disposal of the suit. However, there will be no injunction in respect of its user as the corporate name of the first defendant.”

2. FAO(OS) 280/2003 assails the Orders dated May 30, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in IA No. 9431/2002 in Suit No. 882/2002, of which the operative part reads as follows:- “11. The public notices issued by the respondent do not in any way give an impression to the public at large or their dealers that Court has permitted them to use the word Atlas as their trade mark but it is a notice to the public that henceforth they will sell their goods under the trade mark Premier Gold manufactured by Atlas Products Pvt.Ltd, it being their corporate name. The public notice though do not carry that part of the order which was against the respondents, but it does not in any manner have any prejudicial effect on the plaintiff.

12. As the defendants have been permitted to use it as their corporate name and they are using the same as their corporate name only and not as a trade name no fresh orders are to the contrary required to be passed on this application, defendants being already under injunction from using the trade mark “Atlas” of course with the explicit permission to use it as their corporate name. The application is disposed of accordingly.”

3. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Plaintiffs has submitted that the trade mark “Atlas” has been registered in favour of the Plaintiff since 1952. The Plaintiff asserts that it has over a quarter of the market share in the sale of cycles in India. It is not in dispute that Defendant No.1, namely, Atlas Products Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under the Companies Act in 1995. It is also not in dispute that Defendant No.1 had commenced the manufacture of cycles in February 2002. According to the Plaintiffs, immediately upon learning of this event, they filed Suit No. 882/2002 praying for a permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, infringement of copyright, rendition of accounts of profit, delivery-up etc. Mr. Chandra submits that it is the Plaintiffs case that prior to 2002 the Defendant No.1 was not engaged in any cycle-related business and that being so, the Plaintiffs found no reason or cause to object to the use of the word “Atlas” in the corporate or trade name. It is only when the manufacture of cycles by the Defendant, under the trade mark “House of Atlas” commenced and was learnt of by the Plaintiffs in early 2002 that the compulsion to file the subject Suit had arisen. Mr.Chandra has further submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in coming to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had acquiesced in the Defendants inclusion of “Atlas” in its corporate name. Even if some agreement had been reached between the three branches of the family, it could not be foisted on the Plaintiff which is a separate and distinct legal entity. He argues that the relevant date for reckoning whether there was any acquiescence and knowledge on the part of the Plaintiff is February 2002, the month in which manufacture of cycles was started by the Defendants and, therefore, inasmuch as the present Suit was filed in April 2002 it cannot possibly be held that there was any delay or acquiescence on the part of the Plaintiff. It is primarily on similar lines that Mr.Chandra has also contended that the learned S