Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 impugns the order dated 9th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court (exercising Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction) in CS(OS) No.1431/2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff, of allowing IA No.11461/2013 of the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC and restraining the appellants/defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from using the trademark ?ALL-AROUND PROTECTION/?ALLROUNDER or any other mark deceptively similar to the respondent/plaintiff‘s trademark ?ALLROUND.

2. The learned Single Judge having made the order of interim injunction aforesaid operational after four weeks from pronouncing thereof, we have with consent heard the counsels on the appeal itself at the admission stage. 3. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit from which this appeal arises, pleading:

(i) that the respondent/plaintiff is a leading Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) company and a part of the Anchor Group of companies; though the said group initially entered into the electrical products, but has subsequently expanded its activities into various other products including toothpaste, tooth power, toothbrush, confectionary etc.;

(ii) that the respondent/plaintiff has used the ?ANCHOR ALLROUND PROTECTION mark extensively including in several regional languages in transliterated instead of translated form;

(iii) the logo, device and expression ?ALLROUND and ?ALLROUND PROTECTION has acquired secondary meaning;

(iv) that the respondent/plaintiff has used the mark ?ALLROUND as a trademark/brand identifier since 2005 for its dental care products, mainly toothpaste;

(v) that the respondent/plaintiff on 2nd September, 2005 also applied for registration of the trademark ?ALLROUND and which registration was granted on 26th August, 2008 and is valid and subsisting under the Trade Marks Act, 1999;

(vi) that the trademark ?ALLROUND is also a well known trade mark;

(vii) that the brand ?ALLROUND and the expression ?ALLROUND PROTECTION has become extremely well known;

(viii) that the appellant/defendant no.1 based in China is engaged in manufacturing toothpaste;

(ix) that the appellant/defendant no.2 Procter & Gamble Business Services Canada Company is the owner of the mark ?ORAL-B and the appellant/defendant no.3 Gillette India Ltd. claims to be the importer of the products under the said trademark;

(x) that the respondent/plaintiff in the end of May, 2013 came across news reports that the appellants/defendants who were only into toothbrush manufacturing and marketing were planning to enter into the toothpaste market under the mark ?CREST;

(xi) that however the respondent/plaintiff in the first week of July, 2013 learnt that the appellants/defendants had on 2nd July, 2013 launched their toothpaste under the mark ?ORAL-B ALL-AROUND PROTECTION;

(xii) that the use by the appellants/defendants of the term ?ALL-AROUND PROTECTION is a complete imitation of the respondent/plaintiff‘s mark ?ALLROUND which is a registered trademark and the expression ?ALLROUND PROTECTION used by the respondent/plaintiff;

(xiii) that the appellants/defendants were attempting to ride piggyback on the enormous reputation which the ?ALLROUND PROTECTION toothpaste of the respondent/plaintiff had earned;

(xiv) that the respondent/plaintiff on 14th July, 2013 also learnt that the appellants/defendants had also launched another product by the name ?ORAL-B ALL-ROUNDER;

(xv) that the use by the appellants/defendants of ?ALL-ROUNDER is also in complete violation of the respondent/plaintiff‘s right to the mark ?ALLROUND;

Accordingly, the suit for the reliefs, of declaration that the mark/expression ?ALLROUND PROTECTION of the respondent/plaintiff is a well known mark in relation to oral care especially for toothpaste and for permanent injunction restraining the appellants/defendants from in any manner using the mark/expression ?ALL-AROUND PROTECTIO