The adoption and use of a deceptively similar trademark and the use of a deceptively similar trade dress shows the dishonest and malafide intention of the defendants. When the very adoption is tainted with dishonesty no amount of use can cleanse the dishonesty.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By way of this order, I propose to decide two pending applications, one being I.A. No.22711/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and another being I.A. No.26365/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendants for vacation of the interim order passed on 14th November, 2014.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profit, damages, etc. against the defendants.

3. Brief facts of the case as per the plaint are:-

(i) The plaintiff Company was incorporated in the year 1981 and is engaged inter alia in the business of manufacturing, distributing and marketing of high quality pharmaceutical preparations.

(ii) The plaintiff’s key therapeutic segments include antiseptics, analgesics, gastroenterology, gynaecology, dermatology and neurocare and protein supplements. Some of the pharmaceutical preparations manufactured/marketed by the plaintiff are available in the market under well-known trademarks such as BETADINE, HEPA-MERZ, CARNITOR, CORION, PANSORAL, GONABLOK, UDIHEP, SOOTHEX, DICLOMOL, MOVICOL, CONTRACTUBEX, SENSIGEL, ELUDRIL, ELUGEL, MAYOSPAZ, URGENDOL etc.

(iii) The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark BETADINE in India in relation to pharmaceutical preparations. The trademark BETADINE was earlier registered in favour of Mundipharma AG under Registration Nos.203023 and 425874 in class 5 as of 13th June, 1961 and 17th August, 1984, respectively. These registrations were assigned in favour of the plaintiff vide Deed of Assignment dated 1st September, 1990. The registration No.425874 in class 05 claims use of the mark BETADINE in India since the year 1979. By virtue of the aforesaid assignment, the plaintiff has been assigned all rights, title and interest in the trademark BETADINE along with the goodwill and reputation associated therewith. Details of the registrations in favour of the plaintiff for the trademark BETADINE are provided here as under:

Trademark	Reg. No.	Date	Class of Goods
BETADINE	203023	13th June, 1961	[CLASS 5]: Topical Antiseptics and Pharmaceutical Preparations
BETADINE	425874	17th August, 1984	[CLASS 5]: Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Preparations

The aforesaid trademarks have been renewed, valid and subsisting on the Register of Trade Marks in India.

(iv) In addition to the above registrations, the plaintiff has secured its statutory rights in the trademark BETADINE in various countries, details of some of which are outlined below:

Trademark	Application No.	Date	Country	Status
BETADINE	22602	17/07/1979	Sri Lanka	Registered
BETADINE	25300	23/04/1987	Bangladesh	Registered
BETADINE	24945	25/03/2007	Nepal	Registered
BETADINE	821/61	20/04/2010	Zambia	Registered
BETADINE	29723	22/08/2013	Bahamas	Pending
BETADINE	1243963	16/08/2000	European Union (CTM)	Registered
BETADINE	325982	24/02/1971	Benelux (Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg)	Registered
BETADINE	M/035474	19/05/2010	Malaysia	Registered
BETADINE	54736	03/08/1959	Norway	Registered
BETADINE	81039	24/07/2002	Syrian Arab Republic	Registered

(v) The plaintiff had launched its range of medicinal preparations consisting of a Povidone-Iodine combination under the trademark BETADINE in the year 1990. It is stated that as of today, the plaintiff manufactures microbicidal solutions, surgical scrubs, microbicid