The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff can maintain an action for infringement of a trade mark if it has applied for registration of the trade mark before filing the suit, and that the grant of ad interim injunction may be justified when the injury suffered by the plaintiff cannot be compensated in terms of money.

( 1 ) THESE First Appeals From Order have been preferred against the order dated 8-5-2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Ballia in Original Suit No. 1 of 2002, allowing the application of the plaintiff/respondent and issuing ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using trade mark "pakeeza" on the product of indigo.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 1, hereinafter called the plaintiff filed suit No. 1 of 2002 against the appellants and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 hereinafter called the defendants, for permanent injunction, restraining them from using trade mark "pakeeza" on their product of indigo with the allegations that it was doing business of indigo by producing ultra mine blue indigo and was using trade mark "pakeeza Ultra Mine Blue" which it got registered under Copyright Act under registration No, A57022/1999, dated 3-11-1999 and was using the said trade mark since June, 1993. In the last week of August, 2001 the plaintiff came across the infringing of its good bearing identical trade mark "pakeeza" introduced by the defendants having the same get up, colour, scheme and design of the level as that of the plaintiffs. The label on the bottles adopted and used by the defendants was almost identical or deceptively similar with the label of the plaintiff. Consequently, the purchasers and Intending purchasers would be deceived and defendants goods were likely to be passed off as goods of plaintiff. The defendants were thus making Illegal profits. The plaintiff being registered copy right owner of trade mark "pakeeza" had a facie title, balance of convenience was in its favour and it would suffer irreparable Injury in case the defendants were not restrained from using plaintiffs trade mark.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff moved an application for using of ad interim injunction on the grounds mentioned above.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 filed objection against the said application contending inter alia that firm of defendant No. 3 was doing business of indigo since 1989 at indore (M. P.) under the trade mark "pakeeza" and the above trade mark was of production of super liquid blue indigo. The registration number of Pakeeza Chemicals was 204907 and trade mark was Taj Mahal. Subsequently, the above trade mark was changed showing a baby having cloth and a bucket, However, the business at Indore was closed in the year 1989 due to riot in the city and defendant No. 3 shifted its business to Ballia. He also came in contact with one Mohd. Ali with whom He started business since July, 1991 under the name and style of M/s. Pakeeza Chemicals at GNK Chhapra, Ballia and applied for registration of proprietorship along with Udai Narain and Mohd. All. Observing goodwill of "pakeeza Chemicals" the defendant No. 3 got registration in their name in Sale Tax Department. On the objection by the defendants they disassociated from Pakeeza Chemicals and started new business under the name and style New Pakeeza Bombay Chemicals since June, 1993. The defendant No, 2 Ashish Chemicals was manufacturing indigo since 1996-97 under the name and style of Golden Pakeeza, which was also registered by the Industries Department. Defendant No. I Prem Shankar was doing business of washing powder and loose Indigo since 1982, which was registered in Industries Department in the year 1985-86. Subsequently, he started business of pack indigo in the year 1996 under the name and style Pakeeza P, Chemicals. The plaintiff was aware of the fact that the trade marks of defendants 1 and 3 were separate. They further contended that, the plaintiff had no prima facie case and balance of convenience did not He in its favour and it would not suffer any irreparable injury.

( 5 ) THE learned trial Court on considering the case and evidence of the parties held that the defendants were using the trade mark registered in favour of plaintiffs and they were causing damage to its business. With these findings he allowed the application and restrained the defendants as