Manmohan Singh, J.

1. By this order, I shall dispose of two applications under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, read with Section 151 CPC; first being I.A.No.1204/2012 filed by the plaintiffs, Eaton Corporation & Another in CS(OS) No.156/2012, and second being I.A.No.4318/2012 filed by the defendant BCH Electric Ltd. in its suit being CS(OS) No.575/2012. Both the applications are being decided by common order. In the order, Eaton Corporation & Another would be referred as “Plaintiffs” and BCH Electric Limited would be referred as “Defendant”.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1, M/s Eaton Corporation is a company organized and existing under the laws of United States of America. The plaintiff No.2, Eaton Power Quality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi is the subsidiary of plaintiff No.1.

3. The plaintiff No.1 (the expression whereof shall include its predecessors-in-interest and title) are engaged in the business of the manufacture and sale of “electric apparatus for use in operating machines, engines and motor by current control and electrical supplies, consisting of; controllers for dynamoelectric machines to wit; starting, stopping, reversing, and speed regulating apparatus for motors, and voltage and current regulating apparatus for generators and like control apparatus for rotary convertors; current breakers; magnetic brakes for various types of machines; lifting and separating magnets and controls therefor; solenoids; electric panel boards and other goods included in Class 9.

4. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff No.1 founded in 1911 and incorporated in Ohio in 1916 is a well known premier diversified fortune 200 industrial company having a manufacturing presence in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Puerto Rica, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United Kingdom and United States of America and has been selling their products under various well known trademarks. It is a global corporate being into business for more than 100 years, employing approximately 73,000 employees worldwide and selling its products to customers in more than 150 countries. During the year 2010, their market value is estimated to be $19.92 billion USD approx.

5. It is also alleged that the plaintiff No.1 mainly deals in four distinct industrial segments namely Electrical, Fluid Power, Truck and Automotive wherein they are considered to be the global leaders. Plaintiffs deals in the designs, manufacture, marketing and serving of electrical systems and components for power quality, distribution and control; fluid power systems and services for industrial, mobile and aircraft equipment; intelligent truck drive train systems for safety and fuel economy; and automotive engine air management systems, power train solutions and specialty controls for performance, fuel economy and safety.

6. The trade mark “CUTLER-HAMMER” was first adopted by Cutler-Hammer Inc., predecessor-in-interest and title of plaintiff No.1 in the year 1893 in respect of electric apparatus for use in operating machines and goods mentioned above.

7. The plaintiffs’ contention is that the predecessor-in-title of Cutler-HammerInc. first shipped the goods included in Class 9 under trademark “CUTLER-HAMMER” to India in the year 1919. Since that time, the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest and title and then plaintiffs have continued to use the said trademark in respect of goodsof its manufacture and sale so much so that the plaintiffs’trademark “CUTLER-HAMMER” have come about to be exclusively identified and recognized by the purchasing public and the members of the trade with the goods of the plaintiffs and none else. The trade mark “CH” was first adopted by Cutler-Hammer Inc., predecessor-in-interest and title of plaintiff No.1 in the year 1954 in India in respect of goods falli