VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1. On 21.03.2016, I.A. No. 3733/2016 filed by the defendant No. 1 under Order 39 Rule 4 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter "CPC") was listed. Notice was accepted by learned counsel for the plaintiff and the parties addressed their submissions on the aforesaid two applications – the first being I.A. No.6690/2015 preferred by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC to seek interim injunction, and the latter i.e. I.A. No. 3733/2016 preferred by the defendant No. 1 - being an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC to seek the vacation of the ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction dated 06.04.2015 passed by this court in the plaintiffs aforesaid application. Thereafter, orders were reserved. Since the same could not be pronounced earlier, the matter was listed for recapitulation of the submissions on 22.12.2016. The learned senior counsels were heard and orders reserved on the same day.

2. In I.A. No. 6690/2015, this Court passed an ex parte order of injunction on 06.04.2015 in favour of the plaintiff, thereby directing that

“till further orders the defendants by themselves, their partners, proprietors, directors, agents, servants, licensees, franchisees, representatives and employees or any one claiming under them are restrained from in any manner directly or indirectly using the mark ZIFFI/ZIFFI.COM or any other confusingly/deceptively similar mark in respect of their business/services”.

3. The ex-parte ad-interim order of injunction was stayed by the Division Bench in the appeal preferred by the defendants, being FAO (OS) No.225/2015 on 24.04.2015. The said appeal was disposed of by the Division Bench on 01.03.2016, directing the appellants/defendants to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking vacation of the interim injunction granted on 06.04.2015. The Division Bench directed that the status quo, namely, the stay of the operation of the order dated 06.04.2015 shall continue till the first hearing before this court. The Division Bench observed:

“The matter shall be listed before the learned Single Judge on 21.03.2016. On the first date of hearing of the said application, it would be open to the learned Single Judge to pass an appropriate order either continuing the interim injunction or vacating it. This order may be passed for the purposes of further consideration of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 alongwith the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 or finally deciding the applications on that very date”.

4. The aforesaid application under Order 39 Rule 4 has been filed in pursuance of the direction of the Division Bench, as aforesaid, made on 01.03.2016.

Plaintiff’s submissions:

5. The case of the plaintiff, insofar as it is relevant, is as follows. The plaintiff is a large pharmaceutical company which has introduced several medical formulations and drugs in the market under its brands. In July 2001, the plaintiff launched its medical products and formulations under an invented brand ZIFI containing Cefixime as an active drug – an antibiotic used to treat several diseases. Over 15 years since its launch, the plaintiff’s mark ZIFI has been used in relation to several adult medicinal drugs/ products, such as:

• ZIFI 200 TABLET

• ZIFI – CV 200 TABLET

• ZIFI LBX 200 TABLET

• ZIFI-O TABLET

• ZIFI-AZ TABLET

• ZIFI TURBO TABLET

• ZIFI – OZ TABLET

Apart from the adult range, ZIFI is also used in children’s medicinal products. It is available as dispersible tablet, oral powder for suspension, oral drops and readymix suspension. The pediatric products under the ZIFI brand are as under:

• ZIFI-AZ KID DT

• ZIFI 50/100 DT/DS/RMX/25 MG DROPS

• ZIFI-CV 50/100 DT/DS

• ZIFI CV 100 DRY SYRUP

• ZIFI DROPS

• ZIFI-O 100 DT

• ZIFI-AZ 100 DT

6. The plaintiff has further launched new medicines under the ZIFI brand such as – ZIFI-CV, ZIFI-LBX, ZIFI-O, ZIFI-OZ, ZIFI-AZ and ZIFI TURBO. The plaintiff has also sp