Manmohan Singh, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, delivery up, recovery of damages etc. against the defendant. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 being I.A.No.8856/2013.

2. The suit alongwith said interim application was listed before court on 24th May, 2013. After hearing, detailed ex-parte order was passed against the defendant restraining it from infringing and/or passing off the plaintiff’s rights by using the trade mark MINDGYM or any other mark deceptively or confusing similar to the plaintiff’s mark THE MIND GYM either as part or its corporate name or as a trade mark or as a domain name or in any other manner.

3. Upon service of interim order, the defendant filed its written statement and contested the prayer of interim order passed on 24th May, 2013. The defendant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 for vacation of an ex-parte interim order being I.A. No.13803/2013. By this order, I propose to decide both pending applications.

4. The case of the plaintiff

(i) The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff i.e. Mind Gym Limited was incorporated in United Kingdom in the year 1999. It has been stated that the plaintiff is renowned internationally for its pioneering business that mainly focuses on education/training, personal and professional development, mind management, thought process training and development, psychological and behavioural analysis, motivation and the training and development of mind. It has been stated that the plaintiff has its principal offices in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, its operations, activities, fame and reputation extend to over 30 countries around the world, including India.

(ii) The plaintiff’s trade mark and trade name MIND GYM is a unique, coined term that is inherently distinctive and a well known designation of source for plaintiff’s products and services. The plaintiff’s use of MIND GYM for its specific products and services has been exclusive, extensive and continuous in India and around the world. The plaintiff has acquired reputation and goodwill in India and around the world.

(iii) Plaintiff has statutory protection in major jurisdictions around the world, including United Kingdom, European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, China, Hong Kong, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland and United States. The plaintiff has stated that it is a registered proprietor of THE MIND GYM under classes 16,25,28,35,41 and 42 in India as on 2nd August, 2004 bearing registration no. 1299900.

(iv) It has been stated MIND GYM was conceptualised in 1999 and is the brainchild of Mr. Octavius Black, Mr. Sebastian Bailey and Prof. Guy Claxton. The plaintiff’s first MIND GYM workshop was conducted on 1st September, 2000 at Deutsche Bank in London. The plaintiff’s concept and workshops were an instant success with businesses and, by its tenth year, over 500,000 people had taken part in one of the plaintiff’s MIND GYM workshops.

(v) Plaintiff’s programs under its well known trade name and trade mark MIND GYM have been running in 30 different countries including India with 400 of the world’s most successful organizations such as Google, Accenture, Sony, Shell, Vodafone etc.

(vi) As a result of excellent quality of its products and services sold under its trade name and trade mark MIND GYM over the decades, the plaintiff has come to enjoy a significant goodwill and reputation all around the world, including India. Plaintiff has received numerous awards such as gold award for the “Learning Company of the Year 2013” by Learning Awards UK, the gold award for “External learning Project of the Year 2012’ by Learning Awards UK, etc.

(vii) The plaintiff has a huge sales turnover details of which are given in Para 11 of the plaint and the global sales turnover for the year 2012 is stated to be `1