B.M. Trivedi, J.

1. All the three Appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") below Exh.5 in the Suits being Trade Mark Suit Nos. 2/2016, 3/2016 and 5/2016, involving similar issues on facts and law between the same parties and, therefore, this common order is being passed.

2. The Suit being Trade Mark Suit No. 2/2016 has been filed by the respondent No. 1 - (original plaintiff), against the appellants and the respondent No. 2 (original defendants) in respect of the registered designs bearing Registration Nos. 221068, 221084 and 220948. The suit being Trade Mark Suit No. 3/2016 has been filed in respect of the registered design bearing Registration No. 198241 and the suit being Trade Mark Suit No. 5/2016 has been filed by the same plaintiff and against the same defendants in respect of the registered design bearing Registration No. 227069 for its products Air Coolers. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Appeal from Order No. 125 of 2016 arising out of the impugned order passed by the trial Court in Trade Mark Suit No. 3/2016 shall be considered.

3. The respondent No. 1 herein - (original plaintiff), is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is also a registered Proprietor of various designs including the design bearing Registration No. 198241 for the product Air Coolers. The appellant No. 1 (original defendant No. 1) is also a Company registered under the Companies Act. The appellant No. 2 (original Defendant No. 2) is a Firm and the Sister concern of the Appellant No. 1. According to the respondent No. 1 - original plaintiff, the appellants were selling and pirating the respondent No. 1's registered designs by using the trade mark of the appellant No. 2 i.e. 'CELLO', and the respondent No. 2 herein - original defendant No. 3 was selling the products of the appellants in the city of Gandhinagar. It is further case of the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff that the respondent No. 1 is engaged in the worldwide business of selling and marketing a wide range of its products and has strong network and well established "R & D" Division, comprising of highly qualified and experienced engineers. The respondent No. 1 - plaintiff has launched various models of Air Coolers with unique designs having different models, names and trade marks. The respondent No. 1 had applied for and has become the registered Proprietor of the design for its product Air Coolers under the name "Winter", vide the Registration No. 198241, since 20.1.2005. It is further the case of the respondent No. 1 that earlier in the month of March 2015, the respondent No. 1 had come to know that the appellants had intended to start sale of their products Air Coolers having similar shape, configuration and replication of the four designs i.e. Hi-Cool, Winter, Sumo and Diet, which were registered in favour of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1, therefore, had moved the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad by filing the Civil Suit No. 566 of 2015, in which the said Court had issued the notices to the appellants - original defendants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondents No. 1 had moved the High Court by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No. 4624 of 2015, wherein the High Court vide the order dated 17.3.2015 had restrained the appellants - defendants from marketing, selling, advertising and directly or indirectly dealing in Air Coolers, which have same design, shape, configuration, and design identical to and/or imitation of the designs of the respondent No. 1 - plaintiff, bearing Registration Nos. 194305, 198241, 227069, and 221068. Since, the appellants - defendants had raised the issue of validity of the said registrations in the said earlier suit, the same came to be transferred to the High Court with the consent of the parties. The said suit has been registered as the Civil Suit No. 2/2015 before this Court. In the said suit, the Sin