C O M M O N O R D E R

A common order is being passed in all the above applications.

2. The applicant has knocked the doors of this Court on the ground that the Franchisee appointed by him has not only failed to pay the Franchisee fee but has also created two trade marks similar in colour and appearance to that of the applicant.

3. Considering the fact that there has been a violation of the terms of the Franchise Agreement, the applicant has moved this Court for various orders of interim injunction.

4. The following are the reliefs that are being claimed by the applicant.

i) An interim injunction restraining the respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from infringing the registered trademark of the applicant having registration number 3768877,or any other word/words/logo/artistic work/device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said registered Trademark of the applicant in class 43 and thereby restraining the respondent from in any manner infringing the registered trademark of the applicant pending final adjudication of the disputes between the applicant and the respondent through arbitration.

(ii) An interim injunction restraining the respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person of his/their services by using the word mark ''Aasifaa Biryani" or label mark 'Asifaa' artistic work, or any other work/words/logo/artistic work/design/device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said mark of the applicant in respect of providing food and drinks, temporary accommodation, and thereby restraining the respondent in any manner from passing off, pending final adjudication of the disputes between the applicant and the respondent through arbitration;

(iii) An interim injunction restraining the respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from violating the copyright of the applicant by using the artistic work, anifa ("Anifa Biryani") or any other logo/artistic work/design/device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said copyright of the applicant, and thereby restraining the respondent in any manner violating the copyright of the applicant, pending final adjudication of the disputes between the applicant and the respondent through arbitration.

(iv) An interim injunction restraining the respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from passing off his/their services by using the work mark "Anifa Biriyani" or label mark anifa , artistic work, or any other word/words/logo/artistic work/design/device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said mark of the applicant in respect of providing food and drinks, temporary accommodation, and thereby restraining the respondent in any manner from passing off, pending final adjudication of the disputes between the applicant and the respondent through arbitration.

5. After hearing the counsel, this court had initially granted an order of injunction on 16.12.2020 in all the above applications. After the respondent had entered appearance he brought to the notice of this Court the fact that the applicant herein has earlier filed a suit OS.No.362 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Chengalpet against the respondent making the very same allegations and seeking an injunction restraining the respondent, their men and agents, assigns and legal representatives from using trade name/trade mark "ANIFA", which is the subject matter of A.Nos.701 and 702 of 2020 and the said suit is still pending before the Principal District Court, Chengalpet and the applicant is guilty of forum shopping and is therefore not entitled to any order of injunction.

6. The cause of action for the above suit is the