1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th December 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara, below Application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No 2009 whereby the application for interim injunction came to be dismissed.

2. The short facts emerging from the record are as under:

2.1 The appellant company, which is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, runs its business in the name and style of “Matrix Telecom Pvt. Ltd.”. In the year the predecessors of the appellant company named M/s Matrix Systems had adopted the “MATRIX” and made the word popularized for their products. According to the appellant M/s Matrix Systems had acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation with the said trade mark “MATRIX”. Thereafter a Deed of Assignment took place on 21.12.1998 when present company was incorporated and since then the trademark “MATRIX” is being used by the app company by virtue of such assignment. According to the appellant, the appellant company a predecessors are using trademark “MATRIX” since 1991 and therefore they are prior users.

2.2 The company is engaged in the manufacturing and trade in digital EPABX system, Telephone instruments, Voice Messaging Products, G.S.M. F.C.T. Routers, Public Address Systems, Sing Multi-port G.S.M. Gateways, Single and Multi-Port VOIP gateways, Intercom Security Product and Power Liner Carrier Communication of EPAX including development and designing of electronic cards for the aforesaid products. The system developed by the appellant's predecessors had rows and columns of electronic switches called “Switching Matrix”, a telecom engineering term and thus thoughtfully adopted the word “MATRIX” as their trademark.

2.3. According to the appellant, the appellant had taken efforts to popularise the said goods and services and had taken much pains to popularise the word "MATRIX" and it has become so popular for the product of the appellant that it has got a secondary meaning exclusively for the goods of the appellant. The appellant produced certain documents showing that the predecessors and the Company itself have engaged in spending huge money for publication to make the trade mark "MATRIX" popular. It had applied for registration of trade mark "MATRIX" in Class-9. The appl ication took undue long time in process, and therefore, again on 1st February, 2005 the appellant made a fresh application being Application No. 1335540 in "Class9" in respect of EPABX system and mentioned that the trade mark "MATRIX" was used since 1-1-1991. Since, 3rd September, 2004, the appellant adopted and started using a website/domain named “www.matrixtelesol.com” with a view to expand its business through internet and to facilitate faster communication.

2.4. According to the appellant, on 22nd June, 2006 the respondent opposed the registration of the trade mark "MATRIX" as applied by the appellant. The respondent claimed that it is carrying on the business under the name "Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd." since 1999, and therefore, the respondent was the owner and proprietor of the trade mark "MATRIX", and hence the appellant was not entitled to get any registration as such.

The respondent claimed that the trade mark as proposed for registration was identical and deceptively similar to cause confusion.

2.5. In July, 2005 the appellant learnt that the respondent had also applied for the registration vide No. 1320818 in Class-9 for registration of the identical trade mark "MATRIX" in respect of telecommunication apparatus and equipments together with hardware and it was opposed by the appellant and that application is also pending.

2.6. Thereafter, the respondent applied for registration of trade mark "MATRIX" in relation to Services in Class-38. The application bearing No. 1320817 was also opposed by the appellant and the said application is also pending.

2.7. According to the appellant, the Company had come across the situation of confusion on account of