MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present application has been filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC for vacation of the interim order dated 23rd January, 2013. It is pertinent to mention that this Court vide order dated 23rd January, 2013 had restrained the defendant, its proprietor/partner, representatives, dealers, servants, assignees and successors from using the word PEARL or any trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark PEARL in relation to its services as part of its corporate name and/or in the name of any educational institute/s or in any other manner whatsoever.

2. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel for the applicant/defendant submits that the plaintiff does not have exclusive right over the word PEARL. He points out that the word PEARL has been registered in favour of nine other entities under Class 41 and in each class several people have been granted the stand alone mark PEARL. He states that the stand alone mark PEARL has been registered in favour of Sharda Birla under Class 24. He submits that the word PEARL is a generic word. In support of his submissions, Mr. Gupta relies upon the following Supreme Courts judgment in Sk