ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. This group of appeals are filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short “the Code”) read with sections 5 and 3 of the Commercial Court Act, 2015 challenging order passed below Exh.5 in respective commercial trademark suits, wherein, the learned Commercial Court in exercise of powers under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, dismissed injunction applications.

2. Since this group of appeals involves and contains common and identical facts, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the same is being disposed of by this common order.

2.1. Learned counsel for both the sides requested to take up AO No.20 of 2023 as lead matter. Thus, facts are taken up from the said matter. The appellant is original plaintiff, whereas, the respondents are original defendants before the learned trial Court and therefore, for the sake of bravity, they are referred in the present judgment as per their original status in the suits.

2.2 In all suits filed before the learned Commercial Court, the plaintiff is common, who has filed suits for infringement of registered trademark passing off goods and for permanent injunction along with injunction application Exh.5

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a sole proprietor of 'Express' Electro Elevators having his office at Rajkot and carrying on business of Elevators, moving walkways, moving platforms, Escalators, Engines, Step Chains, Balustrades, step door operators, operating panels, installing repairing, maintaining and modernizing elevators etc. It is further case of the plaintiff that he is registered proprietor of trademark 'Express' Electro Elevators, wherein word 'Express' forms the essential, prominent and distinctive part of the entire trademark. The plaintiff further claimed that said trademark is registered vide trademark registration No.3088775 in class 7 for goods and 3088776 in class 37 for services. It is further case of the plaintiff that he is using said trademark since 1999, which is noted by the Trademark Registry while registering the trademark. The plaintiff has earned goodwill and reputation for his product under the trademark “'Express'”, which is forming entire descriptive matter. However, the defendants have deliberately adopted the trading style as well as trademark containing the word 'Express' so as to encash goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff as well as to pass on their goods under the impression that it is goods of the plaintiff. Therefore, upon such main contention, the plaintiff filed the suit for infringement of the trademark and passing off action.

4. Injunction application has been moved in each suit claiming following relief:-

“Pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, an order of interim as well as ad-interim injunction be passed restraining the defendants by themselves, their servants, agents, dealers and all those connected with them from use of trademark 'Express' as part of their trademark/trading style and thereby, temporarily restrained from passing of their business/goods as that of the plaintiff.”

5. Upon service of the summons in each case, the defendants appeared and filed written statement and have taken a stand that the plaintiff has suppressed the material fact while filing the suit and claiming equitable relief. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not pleaded about the disclaimer clause, which has been stated in the registration certificate of his own trademark and thereby, has materially suppressed the things before the Court below. It is further contended that some third party are using the word 'Express' prominently in its trademark since 1982, which is not stated by the plaintiff in his suit as well as in injunction application while claiming equitable relief. It is further contended that word 'Express' has a dictionary meaning. It is a generic word and worldwide, many people/Business concerns are using the word 'Express' along with thei