JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The appellant has filed the present intra-court appeal, impugning the order dated 17.05.2022 (hereafter `the impugned order') passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the respondent's (plaintiff's) application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was allowed and the appellant was restrained from using the "" mark (hereafter `the impugned trademark') or any other marks deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of the respondent in relation to electrical goods or instruments, including electrical fans, room coolers, geysers, electric heating apparatus etc., or any allied or similar goods, pending disposal of the appeal.

Factual Context

2. Appellant no.1 is the sole proprietor of appellant no. 2 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing electrical fans and other appliances (hereafter `the appellant').

3. KEI Industries Limited (hereafter `the respondent') is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of wires and cables. The respondent claims that the said business commenced in the year 1968. The respondent filed the present suit [being CS(COMM) 9/2021] alleging infringement of its registered word mark "KEI", the device mark "" (hereafter `the device mark') and other formative marks. The mark "KEI" is derived from the initials of the respondent's trade name i.e. (K)rishna (E)lectrical (I)ndustries.

4. The respondent claims that the trademark/trade name "KEI" has been in use continuously since the year 1968. The business was commenced by a partnership firm, which was subsequently incorporated into a public limited company on 31.12.1992.

5. The respondent claims that the device mark was conceptualized and adopted in the year 2007 and was registered in Classes 6 and 9 on 14.06.2007 and 29.06.2007, respectively. The respondent also obtained the registration of the device mark in the allied Classes 16, 35, 37 and 42.

6. The respondent claims that around the month of September, 2017, while conducting a routine check of the records of the Registry of Trade Marks it came across the appellant's application for the impugned trademark under the Classes 07, 11 and 35. The respondent claims that on further inspection, it found that the appellant was engaged in the sale of electrical goods and appliances. Thereafter, the respondent issued a cease and desist notice dated 31.10.2017 to the appellant, inter alia, calling upon the appellant to cease and desist from using the impugned trademark. The appellant responded by a letter dated 27.11.2017, disputing the allegations of passing of and infringement of the respondent's trademarks.

7. Thereafter, the respondent has also opposed the appellant's applications before the Registry of Trade Marks.

8. In view of the disputes between the parties with respect to the impugned trademark, the respondent filed the instant suit, inter alia, seeking a permanent injunction against the appellant, as the appellant had failed to discontinue the use of the impugned trademark.

9. Before the learned Single Judge, the respondent contended that the mark "KEI" has, with the passage of time, become a source identifier of the goods and services of the business carried on by the respondents. It further contended that the letters `KEI' are the most prominent, essential and striking part of the respondent's trademark. The respondent claims that it is inevitable that a person who comes across the appellant's mark would be deceived into believing that the respondent is the source of the said goods.

10. The respondent further stated that the confusion and deception caused by the adoption of the mark "KEI" by the appellant would be aggravated by the fact that the appellant is using the impugned trademark and the mark "KEI" in relation to electrical goods, which - according to the respondent - is the same line of business as that of the respondent. The respondent alleged that the appellant is overtly and illegally trying to capital