( 1 ) THIS is a suit for the removal of an entry of the trade mark Amritdhara from the register of trade marks, for adding a note of disclaimer of any exclusive right to the word Amritdhara to the entry relating to the trade mark in the register and for imposing such limitation or condition on the registration of the trade mark Amritdhara as this court may deem just and proper. It is an admitted fact that on 21-8-1942 Pandit Thakur Dutt Sharma, defendant No. 2, managing proprietor of the Amritdhara Pharmacy Ltd. , Dehra Dun, defendant No. 1, made an application no. 3813 before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, defendant No. 3, for registration of trade mark Amritdhara in class 5 of pharmaceutical substances. The trade mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal as required under Section 15 (1) of the trade Marks Act (Act No. V of 1940), but nobody objected to the registration of the trade mark. Consequently the Registrar registered the trademark on 16-2-3946 with effect from 21-8-1946. The registration was initially for three years; it was subsequently renewed for 15 years with effect from 21-8-1949. The plaintiff is admittedly the proprietor of the Dardnashik Dawakhana, a pharmacy situated in Moradabad. He is manufacturing in. the pharmacy a drug known as Amrit sukh-jiwan Dhara.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is as follows : The plaintiff has been manufacturing Amrit-Sukhjiwan dhara, under that very name, for more than 50 years and has been advertising it extensively and continually. He got the name and the style registered as a trade mark with some Chamber of commerce in Calcutta in 1929. On the coming into force of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (to-be referred to as "the Act" in the rest of the judgment) he deposited the trade mark before defendant no. 3 on 12-5-1941 as required under Section 85 of the Act and his application No. 13699 for registering his trade mark was pending before him. The defendants 1 and 2 (who will henceforth be referred to as "the defendants") prosecuted him in the court of the City Magistrate, Dehra Dun (case No. 67 of 1951) for the offences of Sections 482 and 486, I. P. C. , and the case was pending. In this case the defendants admitted the fact of the deposit of his trade mark with the Registrar. They also filed a suit (suit No. 5 of 1951) against him for (1) damages for infringement of their trade mark Amritdhara by manufacturing and selling Amrit Sukhjiwan Dhara and (2) an injunction to restrain him from doing so in the court of the District Judge, Saharanpur. On account of these proceedings pending against him he considered himself aggrieved by the entry of the defendants trade mark in the register. The trade mark was not registerable at all because it does not contain any of the essential particulars mentioned in Section 6 of the Act; the words "amrit" and "dhara" are not invented words; they are words used in books and the name amritdhara has been used for medicines for long. They have direct reference to the character or quality of the medicine, are laudatory and are not a distinctive mark, inasmuch as they have not been adapted to distinguish the defendants medicine from similar medicines manufactured by others. The trade mark consists of words, the use of which is likely to deceive or to cause confusion and is contrary to the law contained in Section 6 of the Act. The words are publici juris and their use is disentitled to protection in a court of justice. The main constituents or the medicine Ammitdhara, pepermint, campher and thymol, are known to a large number of people in the country and the prescription is mentioned in a number of Ayurvedic books. The name Amritdhara is the commonly used and accepted name of a single chemical compound, but the chemical or technical name of the compound is not known. The defendants secured registration from defendant No. 3 by deceiving him by misrepresenting to him that they had been manufacturing the medicine Amritdhara continuously si