N.Dhinakar, J.: Plaintiff in C.S.No.58 of 2003 on the file of the Original Side of the High Court, Madras, is the appellant in O.S.A.No.258 of 2003 and the defendant in the said C.S.No.58 of 2003 is the appellant in O.S.No.360 of 2003. The said C.S.No.58 of 2003 was filed by the plaintiff for passing off action against the defendant and along with the civil suit, he also filed O.A.No.95 of 2003 for injunction, pending the suit, restraining the defendant/respondent from dealing with the medicinal and pharmaceutical preparation under the trade mar "PIO-15" and "PIO-30", which according to him are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark "PIOZ-15" and PIOZ-30".

2. The learned single Judge ordered notice on the said application on 28.1.2003. The defendant/respondent appeared and filed his counter. He also filed O.A.No.1396 of 2003 for issuance of notice to the plaintiff/applicant as to why he should not be prosecuted for the acts of perjury and making false statements. The learned single Judge, by a common order dated 11.7.2003 dismissed both the applications. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the injunction application, held that the defendant/respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document