RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit for (i) permanent injunction, to restrain the defendant from passing off its insecticides and/or any kind of agro chemical and/or other products as of the plaintiff, by adopting the mark VICTOR 80 which is similar/deceptively similar to the mark VICTOR of the plaintiff and (ii) for ancillary reliefs of delivery, rendition of accounts, damages etc.

2. The suit came up before this Court first on 16th September, 2016, when though summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief issued but the ex-parte relief sought, not granted finding that the defendant, in reply to cease and desist notice preceding the suit has claimed having commenced using the mark in the year 2010, while the plaintiff in its application for registration of the mark VICTOR had claimed use since 2002 and further finding the defendant to have in the said reply also claimed registration of the mark since the year 2010 and the same being cited in opposition to the application dated 9th February, 2011 of the plaintiff for r