1. Both the applications can be decided by a common order as one seeks grant of interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit and the other vacation of the ad interim injunction granted on 12th December, 2011 by this Court in favour of the plaintiff.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contends that the registration of the trademark CROCIN a Paracetamol tablet in favour of the plaintiff relates back to 26th April, 1982. CROCIN is a household name used everywhere. No part of the plaintiff’s mark CROCIN is derived from the Paracetamol and is a coined and adopted name. The defendant infringed the trademark of the plaintiff by adopting the trademark PIROCIN for their Paracetamol tablet. The defendant has not been able to show how it adopted the mark PIROCIN as neither the same relates to the salt in the medicine nor the diseases to be cured. Since it is a case of infringement of plaintiff’s trademark the plaintiff is only required to show that the marks are similar and once the same is shown no further evidence is required to be led. The plaintiff’s existence in India dates back to 1963 when it was first adopted by Dhapur Interfan Limited. The mark was then acquired by