1. O.A. Nos. 1145 and 1146 of 2015 are filed by die plaintiff in a suit for permanent injunction inter-alia alleging infringement of the trade mark and passing off by the defendant, thus, seeking interim prohibitory orders from doing so. Seeking vacation of the orders passed in those applications in O.A. Nos. 1145 and 1146 of 2015, A. Nos. 1554 and 1555 of 2016 have been filed by the defendant.

2. For the sake of brevity, the applicant and respondents in O.A. Nos. 1145 and 1146 of 2015 of 2016 are arrayed as such.

3. The Facts in Brief:-

3.1. A venture came into being under the name of “Hatsun Dairy Pvt. Ltd.” which was subsequently changed to “Hatsun Milk Products” and thereafter as “Hatsun Agro Products Ltd.” in the years 1993, 1996 and 1998. It was further merged with “Hatsun Agro Products Ltd.” in 1998, now the applicant. The applicant is said to be producing substantial quantity of milk. It also ventured^ into milk products under the trade mark “Hatsun”. A registration has been done under the trade mark “Arokya” a fresh creamy milk under Class 30 of the Fourth Schedule under I lie Trade Mark Rules 2002 in the year 1995. Thereafter, in 2005 and 2006, registrations have been made under the trade mark “Arokya” for milk products and their labels. It is (he further case of the applicant that its market extends to various parts of the southern India. Except the first registration, others are done under Classes 29 and 32, as the case may be. However, it appears that even the first registration made must in all likelihood have been brought under Class 29.

3.2. The respondent is doing its business in Madurai using the unregistered mark “Arokya”. However, the business of the respondent is in “Dhall and Maida”. According to the respondent, it is restricted to Madurai alone and in any case not extended to Chennai. Suffice it is to state that the respondent does not venture into the business of the applicant, which is not in dispute.

3.3. Alleging that the registered mark is infringed and the respondent is passing off its goods as that of the applicant with the allegation that there are instances of sale within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court, the present suit is laid.

3.4. This Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of the applicant on 16.10.2015 in O.A. Nos. 1145 and 1146 of 2015 in C.S. No. 854 of 2015.

4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the documents and typed set of papers.

5. Applicant’s Case:-

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has earned its goodwill and reputation in the market, which is sought to be encroached upon. Such an intrusion would be hit by Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. When once a mark is registered, which is sought to be infringed, a protection order will have to follow by necessary implication. The word “Arokya” is neither generic nor descriptive. Even in such a case, any other party, which is said to be using the trade mark, will have to be injuncted. Such a word is to be seen in tune with the business of the applicant. The document No. 20 filed along with the plaint in the form of cash memo would show that the respondent is selling its product at Chennai. The mere fact that the respondent has filed applications under class 30 seeking registration of the word “Arokya” will not disentitle the applicant from getting the appropriate relief. Thus, a case of infringement and passing off is made out. Though a number of judgments have been filed in the typed set of papers, reliance is sought to be made on the decision of this Court in Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd. v. Ashok Leyland Limited and Another, 2011 (4) CTC 417 : LNIND 2011 MAD 2147 as confirmed in Ashok Leyland Limited v. Blue Hill Logistics Private Ltd. 2011 (4) CTC 397 : LNIND 2010 MAD 5173 : (2011) 4 MLJ 129.

6. Case of the Respondent:-

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the applicant has not complied with the Order 39, Rule 3 C.P.C. Th