By the Court.—This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure arising from an order dated 22.8.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, District Varanasi, allowing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC of the plaintiff, for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying on trade in PVC Pies with the name of ‘G.K. DURO Plast’ or with the name ‘DP DURO Supreme’ or that any name which is similar to that, fixing 4.10.2012, for framing of the issues.

2. We have heard Sri Manu Khare for the defendant-appellant. Sri Naveen Sinha assisted by Ashish Kumar Srivastava appears for the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a Suit No. 25 of 2011 in the Court of District Judge, Varanasi against Guru Kripa Manufacturing Private Ltd (defendant No. 1) and Sri Hari Krishna Kishore Lal Singhal (defendant No. 2) alleging that the plaintiff Company is incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, and is carrying on business of manufacturing and trading of PVC pipes as partnership firm. The partnership firm was taken over and merged in a private limited company under the name and style of M/s. Duro Pipe Industries Private Ltd. The Company is registered with Registrar of Companies, in West Bengal. The business of the plaintiff since its incorporation, as partnership concern is duly approved as small scale industry by the District Industries, Jaunpur, for which the Company is registered with the Trade Tax Department (U.P. and Central) as well as U.P Pollution Control Board. The plaintiff is regularly assessed by the office of Income Tax, Varanasi till the same was a partnership concern. After the incorporation of Private Limited Company, the income tax returns were submitted in Calcutta (West Bengal). The Central Excise Department has also registered the plaintiff’s unit as manufacturing unit for which the plaintiff is duly assessed. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff’s product is manufactured and sold under the trade name ‘Duro Supreme’ with logo embossed as “DP” in a circle. Each and every product of PVC pipe manufactured in the plaintiff’s factory has been widely advertised, exhibited and circulated by print media and other prominent places in the market for its users since 1994. The plaintiff is user of its trade name “DP” Duro Supreme since 1994 and has acquired substantial status, market, business, repute, goodwill and credit amongst users and manufacturers of PVC pipes. The status and goodwill of the plaintiff has become an eye sore amongst the directors of the defendant, resulting into calculated jealous, preconceived, evil design of coying out fraudulently as that of resembling to plaintiff’s product.

4. In paras 7 to 16 of the plaint, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendant company came into existence in the year 2009 vide certificate of incorporation obtained from the Registrar of Companies, U.P on 15.2.2009 with its factory situate at 307 Karwat, Ralhupur, New Dandi, District Chandauli where from the defendants are engaged in manufacturing selling and marketing their product widely propagating it to be plaintiff’s by fraudulently embossing “GK” Duro plast. The defendants in utter disregard and in complete violation of plaintiff’s trade mark “DP” Duro Supreme with mala fide intentions to put the plaintiff into recurring business loss in the similar pattern, started manufacturing PVC pipe under disguised and deceptive name “GK” Duro plast with similar color and resemblance. The pleadings in paras 7 to 16 of the plaint are quoted as below :

“7. That defendant’s company could came in existence recently in the year 2009 and a certificate of incorporation was obtained by them from Registrar of Companies, U.P on 15.2.2009. The factory of defendants situate at 307 Karwat, Ralhupur, New Dandi District Chandauli, where from defendants are engaged in manufacturing, selling and marketing their produce wid