JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (the plaintiff in the suit) challenging the order dated 31.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Central)-10, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in short, 'the ADJ') in Suit bearing TM No. 97 of 2019 (157 of 2019) titled Ms. Dhani Aggarwal v. Mahesh Yadav & Ors., whereby the learned ADJ has been pleased to dispose of the application of the appellant filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'CPC') as also the application of the respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, holding that prima facie the word per se, that is, 'RAMU' (of the appellant) and 'RAMAA', 'RAMAA MUNAKKA' label (of the respondents) may not have phonetic similarity but the overall get up/label/packaging of the appellant has been copied by the respondents and the respondents have tried to come close to the appellant; the appellant being the prior user of the mark/label and an established brand, was entitled to the protection of its label. The learned ADJ has held that the defendants in the suit/respondents herein would be entitled to use