INDERMEET KAUR, J.

I.A. No.3682/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code) & I.A. No.4425/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code) in CS(COMM) 222/2017

1. The plaintiff Paramount Surgimed Limited is a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The products of the plaintiff are manufactured and sold under the mark and name “PARAMOUNT” which is also the prominent part of the corporate name of the plaintiff company. These includes surgical blades, disposable scalpels, stitch cutters, skin graft blades etc. In para 6 of the plaint, it has been stated that the plaintiff company is also manufacturing, exporting and supplying intensive care hospital beds in India through its sister concern M/s United Poly Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which was established in the year 1980. The products of the plaintiff are being exported to over 50 countries. The word “PARAMOUNT” was first adopted by the plaintiff in the year 1993 as part of its corporate name. It is the registered proprietor of mark label “PARAMOUNT” under clause 10 (surgical, medical, dental etc.) as also in class 20 (furniture, mirrors, picture frames etc.) and its first registration dates back to 14.01.2000. The details of 15 registrations of the plaintiff are contained in para 13 of the plaint. The plaintiff company has spent a considerable amount of money in promoting and advertising its trademark “PARAMOUNT” and the details of the expenditure is contained in para 18. It’s is sale turnover is given in para 19. All these submissions are supported by the documents. Contention of the plaintiff is that he is the prior adopted user and lawful owner of the trademark/name “PARAMOUNT”.

2. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated in the year 2012 under the Indian Companies Act. Defendant No.2 is a foreign company incorporated under the laws of Japan. It is engaged in manufacturing, selling, exporting hospital beds under the trademark “PARAMOUNT”. Defendants No. 3 to 5 are the directors of defendant No.1. The defendants have recently adopted and started using trademark/label “PARAMOUNT” of the plaintiff as their trade name in relation to their impugned goods and are carrying out the impugned activities in India. In the month of February, 2017 when the distributors of the plaintiff addressed a letter to them information was disclosed that the plaintiff had “recently launched a range of hospital beds; this was then was inquired into. Adoption of the trade name “PARAMOUNT” which is the registered mark of the plaintiff by the defendant is dishonest; the defendants are riding upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff which he has built over the years.

3. In the year 2012, vide a letter dated 20.03.2012, defendant No.2 was directed to file a response to the notice of opposition dated 01.04.2009 filed by the plaintiff; no response was received from the defendants. The use of the mark “PARAMOUNT” by the defendants which is identical and deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff”s mark has caused an irreparable loss and injury to him. A prima-face case is made out in favour of the plaintiff as the reputation of the plaintiff has been tarnished by this dishonest adoption of the user of his trade name by the defendants. Balance of convenience is also in his favour. He has accordingly filed the present suit and had prayed for an ad-interim ex-parte order.

4. On 23.03.2017, an ex-parte order had been passed in favour of the plaintiff. The said order reads herein as under:-

“The defendants, its directors, principal officers, assignees, affiliates, associates, partners, family members and anyone acting for and on their behalf, etc. are restrained till the next date of hearing from providing and offering goods, distributing, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in identical or allied/cognate goods under the impugned trade mark/trade name/corporate name or domain name comprising of the mark PARAMOUNT or any other mark which is deceptively similar to that of