JUDGMENT :

G.S. Sistani, J.

Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trade mark, damages, delivery up. On the first date of hearing i.e. 30.11.2007 while granting exparte ad interim injunction summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued. On 1.12.2008 the defendant entered appearance. Thereafter written statement was filed. As none appeared on behalf of the defendant on 4.2.2009, 25.2.2009 and 4.3.2009, defendant was proceeded ex parte on 4.3.2009 and injunction order was made absolute. Subsequently, I.A. No. 5713/2009 was filed by the defendant seeking recall of the order dated 14.3.2009, which application was allowed on 14.9.2009. Thereafter on 24.5.2010 the defendant was again proceeded ex parte. Plaintiff has filed ex parte evidence of one Mr. Vinod Kumar, Director of the plaintiff company. Copy of the Resolution in his favour is marked as Exhibit PW-1/1. In the said affidavit Mr. Vinod Kumar has deposed that plaintiff is the proprietor of the registered trade mark 555 vide registration no. 11989 in Class 3 in respect of soap and detergent powder for laundry use. The said trade mark has been continuously renewed from time to time and is valid and subsisting in the register of Trade Mark Registry. A copy of the trade mark registration certification in favour of the plaintiff company has been exhibited as PW-1/2. This witness has further deposed that registered trade mark 555 is being used by the plaintiff uninterruptedly since the year 1924. The said trade mark enjoys an enviable goodwill and reputation in the market on account of its perpetual, long continuous use. The product of the plaintiff is distinct on account of its packaging material, which is evident from the huge sales of the said goods. It is further deposed that the said trade mark of the plaintiff is a well known mark and is a household name with regard to washing soap/detergent powder for washing clothes. The annual turnover by way of sales of the company runs into crores of rupees. The sale and advertisement figures have been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4. The sales figures for the years 1991-92 upto the year 2006-2007 are as under:

2. This witness has also deposed that plaintiff has incurred large amounts on advertisements and promotion of its products in the newspapers, televisions, hoardings, slides, radio. The expenditure incurred on advertisement in the last fifteen years are as under:

3. It is next deposed by this witness that on account of the fact that plaintiff has been continuously promoting its goods and business under the trade mark 555, plaintiff has spent enormous amounts of money on its publicity and further on account of its excellent quality and high standards of manufacturing, the trade mark of the plaintiff has acquired a secondary meaning which denotes the plaintiff and its goods exclusively. A copy of the sample/packaging material has been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3. This witness also deposed that defendant is engaged in manufacturing and marketing bar soaps under the identical trade mark 555 of the plaintiff. A copy of packaging material used by defendant has been exhibited as PW-1/5. This witness has further deposed that defendant