ORDER :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

The present civil revision petition is arising out of an order, dated 05.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.617 of 2019 in C.O.S.No.34 of 2019 by the Court of the XXIV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Commercial Court, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit, i.e., O.S.No.34 of 2019 before the Court of the Special Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Order VII Rules 1 and 2, Section 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Sections 27, 28, 29 and 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 88 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is a Trust, incorporated under the Indian Trust Act, 1882 and the registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘BAMBINO’, which is the subject matter of the suit and the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 is the permitted user of the trade mark and it is a company registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 is a Private Trust and Sri M.K.Rao is the Managing Trustee of the Trust. Sri M.K.Rao conceived an idea of manufacturing and introducing vermicelli and pasta in India in the year 1982 and the word ‘BAMBINO’ as trade mark in respect of vermicelli and pasta. The petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 is the manufacturer of vermicelli and pasta. The petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 has obtained registration of trade mark ‘BAMBINO’ under No.477151 and composite label marks under Nos.461543, 844424, 844425, 844427, 844428, 844429, 989893, 1028832, 1909811, 1909812, 2004197, 2091673, 2196754, 2196755, 2324258, 2324260, 2456648, 2456649, 2456650, 2456651, 2456652, 2595621, 2595622, 2637861, 2637863, 2737919, 2352979, 2737921, 2764974, 2938242, 2965908, 3055081, 3055083, 3055084, 3055085, 3449824, 3449825, 3449826, 3449827, 3471289, 3471290, 3662224, 3669442, 3669444, 3669445, 3834428, 3889966, 3889967, 3889968, 2352980, 2352981, 2456647 in classes 30, 29 and 3 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the registrations having been renewed from time to time are subsisting. It is stated that the plaintiffs being the prior adopters, users of the trade mark ‘BAMBINO’ and originators of the artistic works contained in their label marks/pouches, enjoy copyright therein.

3. The facts further reveal that the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1 has executed a formal ‘registered user’ agreement, dated 12.08.1999 in favour of the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 in accordance with the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the petitioner No.2/plaintiff No.2 being the permitted user has been paying the royalty to the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1. The facts further reveal that the petitioner No.1/plaintiff No.1, in whose favour there is a registration of the trade mark, is doing the business under the trade mark ‘BAMBINO’ for the last four decades and in the month of November, 2018, it came to the notice of the petitioners/plaintiffs that the respondents/defendants have started using the trade mark ‘BERLINO’ for the vermicelli, soan papdi, mushroom soup and mixed vegetable soup, which is almost like that of ‘BAMBINO’ and therefore, issued a ‘cease and desist notice’ to the respondents/defendants on 24.11.2018. The respondents did submit a reply on 26.12.2018 accepting that they are manufacturing vermicelli, pasta, soups and soan papdi under the trademark ‘BERLINO’ for their customers. A rejoinder to the reply was also served on the respondents/defendants on 11.01.2019 informing them to comply the requirement of the notice sent on 24.11.2018. The respondents/defendants, instead of desisting from using the trade mark, have filed a suit, i.e., Civil Suit No.1 of 2019 before the learned District Judge, Uddam Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand for alleged groundless threats under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the same is pending for adjudication.

4. The facts further reveal that the respondent No.2/defendant No.2 has also made