( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under S. 104 read with Order 43 of the Code of civil Procedure. It is directed against the order dated January 6, 1992, passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, on the Respondents application Exh. 6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 5002 of 1991, for interim injunction. The respondent before me was the plaintiff in the suit, and the appellant was defendant No. 1. For the sake of convenience, I will refer to them by their position, they occupied before the trial Court, i. e. , respondent as "the plaintiff" and the appellant as "the defendent".

( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the learned Judge has issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, marketing and selling their tea products under mark "sargam", during the pendency of the suit.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff is a company carrying on the business of blending, processing and marketing tea under different trade marks. The defendant is also a company engaged in the similar business of blending, processing and marketing of tea under different trade marks. As stated in the plaint, the plaintiff is a very well-known manufacturer of various brands of tea, and its products are very famous in the market. In order to distinguish its products from the products of others, the plaintiff has adopted a specially designed label, after adopting the trade mark "sargam" in respect of the tea, they have been marketing. Before doing so, the plaintiff had carried out a wide search in the market for its trade mark SARGAM which was conceived by the plaintiff long before, and also the plaintiff had made a search with the Trade mark Registry, and had found that no other party in the market had any resembling or conflicing mark in relation to its tea. According to the plaintiff, it has also applied to the Trade Mark Registry for registration of the trade mark "sargam". It is the case of the plaintiff that it is the proprietor of the trade mark "sargam". The plaintiff has prepared labels bearing that mark for being used for the sale of its tea. Before putting its tea under the trade mark "sargam" in the market, the plaintiff had made all the necessary preparations, such as preparation for cylinders, packet rolls, printing and packing materials, etc. The plaintiff had also put in advertisements for its tea under the trade mark "sargam", and had got prepared advertising materials in huge quantity. According to the plaintiff, it has put in the market, its product, i. e. , tea under the trade mark "sargam", and it has received very good demand for that tea from the consumers.

( 4 ) IT is the grievance of the plaintiff that sometime prior to the filing of the suit, it came to know that the defendant had adopted a similar trade mark "sargam" as that of the plaintiff, in relation to its (defendants) product tea, which the defendant was intending to put in the market. The plaintiff, therefore, immediately informed the defendant by a telegram, the fact that it (the plaintiff) had registered the brand name "sargam" under application No. 547824, and that the plaintiff has been marketing tea since long. It is the case of the plaintiff that even after receiving its telegram, the defendent sheerly ignored that telegram. It is further the case of the plaintiff that it had inserted a caution notice in a Gujarati Newspaper "sandesh" on August 28, 1991, stating that the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the trade mark "sargam" being used in relation to its product tea, and that the proceedings for registration of that trade mark were going on. With the aforesaid statements in the caution notice inserted in the Gujarati newspaper "sandesh", the plaintiff warned others against copying the aforesaid trade mark.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the palintiff, inspite of the facts as aforesaid, the defendant had advertised to launch its product (tea) under the trade mark "sargam", which the defendant had no right to do. As stated by the plaintiff in the palint, the defendant is