JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J.

I.A. 3107/2017 (under Section 135(2) Trade Marks Act, 1999 r/w Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiffs) and I.A. 6778/2017 (under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, by Defendants)

1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforementioned applications, one filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 135(2) of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') read with Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC and the other by the Defendants under Order 39 Rule 4, CPC for vacation of ex parte ad interim` injunction granted vide order dated 10.03.2017.

2. The suit, in which the present applications have been filed, is for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants inter alia from infringing Plaintiffs' registered trademark `CENTRAL PARK' or its variants as well as from constructing, developing, marketing etc. any housing or real estate projects under the impugned trademarks or any other trademark which incorporates or contains any reference to the registered trademarks of Plaintiff No. 1.

3. Factual matrix emerging from the plaint is that Plaintiffs No. 1 to 4 are Companies with common Directors and are part of the same Group of Companies, incorported under the Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiffs are one of the most reputed real estate developers in the country who adopted the registered trademark [IMG] years ago on 21.03.2015. Currently, Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered propreitor of 11 such registered trademarks with the words `CENTRAL PARK' as their prominent and leading feature.

4. It is stated that Plaintiffs enjoy unparalled goodwill and reputation as real estate developers and have been instrumental in developing land and constructing premier residential apartments, hospitality projects, five-star hotels with projects and production units in various parts of the country and can boast of an audited annual turnover of Rs.1,784 crores in the Financial Year 2015-16 alone. Each of these projects have been undertaken under the umbrella trademark/housemark CENTRAL PARK. It is averred that apart from common law rights which the Plaintiffs enjoy by prior adoption and use, Plaintiff No. 1 in order to secure statutory rights in the word mark CENTRAL PARK and its derivatives/formatives has obtained registrations, which are valid and subsisting and the list is as follows:

5. It is further stated that some of the projects of the Plaintiffs are internationally recognized and renowned. One of their projects namely, Central Park-II at Gurugram was executed under the guidance and technical supervision of world's largest architectural and engineering Firm, HOK International Limited, which has the singular distinction of planning the Dubai Marina. Various National publications such as Times Property as well as other print and digital media have covered the projects of the Plaintiffs and the popular channel Zee News, included the CENTRAL PARK-II project in its list of Top-9 high-end real estate complexes in India. Plaintiff No. 1 is also the recipient of the Award for the `Best Residential Project in NCR under Luxury Segment category'.

6. It is further averred that the annual turnover of the Plaintiffs from their projects, as mentioned in the plaint, is an excellent indicator of the popularity and reputation of the mark CENTRAL PARK. Total revenue collection of the Plaintiffs and their licensees from booking and sale of properties under the project CENTRAL PARK-I wa