The main legal point established is that at the interlocutory stage, the plaintiff's claim for trademark infringement must be proven, and the balance of convenience is a crucial factor in granting interim injunction.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal - Commercial Appellate Division filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the order, dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge in O.A.No.240 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022 on the file of this Court and grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A.No.240 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022. Original Side Appeal - Commercial Appellate Division filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the order, dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge in O.A.No.241 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022 on the file of this Court and grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A.No.241 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022. Original Side Appeal - Commercial Appellate Division filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the order, dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge in O.A.No.243 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022 on the file of this Court and grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A.No.243 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022. Original Side Appeal - Commercial Appellate Division filed under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent Act to set aside the order, dated 23.08.2022 passed by the learned Judge in O.A.No.242 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022 on the file of this Court and grant an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A.No.242 of 2022 filed in C.S.No.82 of 2022.)

COMMON JUDGMENT

D. Bharatha Chakravarthy

1. These intra-court appeals arise out of the common order passed by the learned Single Judge in O.A.Nos.240 to 243 of 2022 and A.Nos.1875 and 1876 of 2022 in C.S (Comm.Div.).No.82 of 2022. By the said order, the learned Single Judge refused the prayers for interim junction and application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, while directing the defendant to maintain and submit accounts on quarterly basis with regard to turn over from the sale of products bearing the impugned mark and the profits derived therefrom until disposal of the suit.

2. In this judgment, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Civil Suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff Company is that it forms part of the renowned business conglomerate namely, The TVS Group of Companies. It has a combined turnover of more than Rs.5,41,93,29,50,000/- and a total workforce of close to 39,000 employees all operating with TVS marks. The brand TVS Electronics was originally conceived in the year 1986. In the year 2001, the name was changed to TVS e Technology Limited, but, was again changed to TVS Electronics Limited in the year 2003. The said trade names and marks are continuously used since its conception from the year 1986. They also manufacture and sell Point of sale devices, Printers, Keyboards apart from sale and manufacture of CCTV Cameras and related products through their dealer network spanning across 300 towns in India. The plaintiff is the prior user, bonafide adopter and is also the registered proprietor of the marks TVS Electronics in various forms and their marks are registered in Application Nos.647268, 4222372, 4222373, 4222374, 4222375, 4222376, 4222377, 4222378, 4222379, 4590278, 4590279, 4324084, 4324085, 4324235, 4324236, 4324237, 4324242, 4324243, 4324244, 4054442, 4324083, 4148041, 4148042, 4148043, 4148044, 4148067, 4148068, 4148069, 4148070, 4324081 and 4324082. The plaintiff has received several accolades and awards nationally and internationally for maintenance of good quality of its products and services.

4. The defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling CCTV Cameras and products and its related solutions under the trade name Hash Control Systems. Apart from operating the website www.hashcontrol.com, the defendant al