The main legal point established is that in a trademark infringement action, if the defendant's mark is likely to deceive due to similarity with the plaintiff's mark, no further evidence is required to establish the violation of the plaintiff's rights.

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 Smithkline Beecham Plc. In 2010 Smithkline Beecham Plc changed its name to Smithkline Beecham Limited and became the proprietor of mark CROCIN in India. Medicinal preparation under the mark CROCIN are extremely popular and widely consumed in India and the plaintiff’s have incurred substantial expenditure in establishing their goodwill and reputation. The blister blue strip packaging of CROCIN launched since the year 2002 has acquired great recognition and thus in addition to being licensed user of the registered trademark CROCIN owned by plaintiff No.1, plaintiff No.2 is the owner of the copyright in the artistic work comprising CROCIN blue blister packaging. Not only the defendants have copied the trademark of the plaintiffs, but have also copied the phrase used “the effective relief from pain - gentle on stomach”. Thus, the defendants are copying all the essential features of the plaintiff’s mark. The defendants are also in the pharmaceutical business. In 2010 the plaintiff’s were alerted to the sale of analgesic and anti-pyretic tablets by the defendant. The defendants have adopted the mark PIROCIN virtually identical to the plaintiffs’ well-known and registered CROCIN mark and merely replaced the alphabet ‘C’ with‘PI’. The members of the trade and purchasing public are likely to perceive the defendants’ products as originating from the plaintiffs’; which is absolutely false. Further, the two rival marks are virtually identical. The two products with rival marks are used for identical purposes i.e. both provide relief from pain, the class of consumers directly overlap and the channel of trade is also identical. The plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the defendant. The stand of the defendant in the reply to the legal notice is different than the written statement. Even the name of the product has been mentioned wrongly. The defendant failed to mention, since when they were using the name and how they acquired the same. The defense taken is that the two marks are not similar. Both are honest and concurrent user of the marks. In case of infringement of the trademark, once marks are found to be similar then honest and concurrent use has no relevance. Secondly, the mark has to be compared as a whole and the same cannot be dissected. The principle to be applied is that of an ordinary man with imperfect recollection. The defendant’s plea of want of territorial jurisdiction is also not maintainable, as the plaintiff has an office in Delhi as is mentioned in memo of parties. Thus, the plaintiff works for gain in Delhi. Further, the plaintiff’s goods are extensively sold in Delhi. The plaintiff has also filed the sale invoices relating to Delhi. The case of the defendant that the registration is bad and is not valid is not relevant for the present suit, as f