Indira Banerjee, J.

This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 19.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Bench allowing the application being O.A.No.72 of 2018, of the plaintiff, impleaded as respondent No.1 in this appeal, for interlocutory injunction in the suit being C.S.No.65 of 2018.

2. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to be the sole proprietor of M/s.J.S.Screens, engaged in production of Tamil feature films. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has enrolled as a member of the respondent No.3, Film and Television Producers Guild of South India, a registered society impleaded as the third defendant in the suit. The Registration Number of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is 9880.

3. The plaintiff/respondent No.1, claims to have applied for registration of his film titled KARU with the respondent/defendant No.3 on or about 3.9.2011. It has been stated that the application for registration was approved with effect from 28.9.2011 and the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was given Guild Registration No.16530. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has pleaded that, at the material time there was no other film with the title KARU registered with the second or the third defendant/respondent.

4. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the third defendant/respondent is the oldest organisation of its kind and its members comprise, inter alia, film producers spread across South India. The third defendant/respondent safeguards the interest of its members and acts strictly in terms of its bye-laws. As a member of the third defendant/respondent, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims entitlement to all protection and privileges as available to the members of the third respondent/defendant. The appellant/defendant No.1, however, is not a member of the third respondent/defendant.

5. The second defendant/respondent, M/s. Tamil Film Producer Council, is also a society similar to the third respondent/defendant, comprising, inter alia, of film producers. The appellant/defendant No.1 is a member of the second respondent/defendant.

6. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1, the second and the third defendants/respondents coordinate with each other to ensure that there is no duplication of registration of film titles. The registered title holders alone are entitled to use the titles registered with the second and third defendants/respondents to the exclusion of other members. The titles so registered by members cannot be used by others, even as prefix or suffix with other words.

7. In paragraph (5) of the plaint, it is pleaded that after registration of the film title KARU with the third defendant/respondent, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 started production of a film titled KARU. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 claims to have made huge investments for his aforesaid film monetarily as also by way of labour, publicity, etc. It is, however, not in dispute that the film has not yet been completed and the same is not ready for release.

8. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 has stated that the plaintiff/respondent No.1 was shocked and surprised to come across hoardings and advertisements in dailies, including Daily Thanthi of a film produced by the appellant/first defendant under the same title KARU, which is directed by one Vijay.

9. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the appellant/first defendant is reported to have registered its film title KARU with the second defendant/respondent in 2017, six years after the plaintiff/respondent No.1 registered the said title with the third defendant/respondent.

10. The plaintiff/respondent No.1 contends that adoption by the appellant/first defendant of the title KARU is unfair in view of the earlier registration by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 in 2011, of the film titled KARU with the third defendant/respondent.

11. According to the plaintiff/respondent No.1, he adopted the tile KARU for his film in tune with the theme of the film. The title is most apt and appropriate having regard to the story of