JUDGMENT :

G. Radha Rani, J.

Since common issues arise in all these appeals, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. CCCA No.20 of 2021 was filed by PepsiCo against the judgment and decree in O.S No.95 of 2004 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2019 for dismissing the suit filed by them for infringement of trade mark, copy right, passing off, acts of unfair competition, dilution, damages/rendition of accounts etc.

3. CCCA No.21 of 2021 was filed by PepsiCo against the finding on issue No.1 in the judgment and decree in O.S. No.19 of 2004 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 31.12.2019. The said suit was filed by M/s.MagFast Beverages claiming damages and for permanent injunction. The said suit was also dismissed by the trial court however, observing that the rights conferred by registration of the trademark were subject to the rights of prior user of the trademark and that M/s.Magfast Beverages were prior users of the trademark ‘Mountain Dew’ and held on issue No.1 in their favour that they were holders of the trademark rights regarding the disputed trademark ‘Mountain Dew’.

4. Cross Objections No.32 of 2021 is filed by M/s.Magfast Beverages for dismissing the suit filed by them in O.S. No.19 of 2004 vide judgment and decree dated 31.12.2019 by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

5. The parties are hereinafter referred as per their array in OS No.95 of 2004 i.e. PepsiCo is referred as ‘plaintiffs’ and M/s.Magfast Beverages are referred as ‘defendants’.

6. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction originally in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi vide suit No.1332 of 2003. On the transfer petition filed by the defendants, as per the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case was transferred to the City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the same was tried as O.S. No.95 of 2004 by the X Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

7. The case of the plaintiffs was that PepsiCo Incorporation was a Corporation incorporated in USA having its registered office at Delhi and the 2nd plaintiff was duly authorized to protect the various trademarks of the 1st plaintiff. They were jointly referred as plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were the world renowned manufacturers and sellers of beverages under the trade marks Pepsi, Mirinda, 7UP, Aquafina etc. The various companies of the plaintiffs all over the world were also the largest manufacturers and sellers of snack food etc. One of the leading businesses of plaintiffs was also sale of carbonated citric soda under the name ‘Mountain Dew’. The Mountain Dew drink was well known throughout the world. The public at large were well aware that Mountain Dew belonged to the plaintiffs. The total sales under the mark would run into billions of dollars. The plaintiffs spend approximately 15 million US Dollars per annum on the advertisement and promotion of ‘Mountain Dew’. The global annual sale for the said trade mark was approximately 7 billion dollars.

7.1. The mark Mountain Dew was adopted in the year 1940 and was being continuously used since that date. The Mountain Dew soda was the first carbonated citrus