Introduction

[1] The originating summons in this case ("OS") had described parties as the applicants and the respondent. Order 7 r 2(2) of the Rules of 2012 ( ROC ) states that a party taking out the OS shall be described as the plaintiff and the other party shall be described as the defendant-please see Mohan Chatram MT Ramchandani v. Ketua Pengarah Insolvensi Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur , [2015] 1 CLJ 354 .

[2] The 1st plaintiff company (the 1st plaintiff) is the proprietor of a trade mark (annexed as Annexure A to this judgment (the 1st plaintiff's trade mark)) which has been registered in the Register of Trade Marks ("Register") for goods in Class 4. The 2nd plaintiff company (the 2nd plaintiff) is the registered user of the 1st plaintiff's trade mark

[3] The defendant company (the defendant) is the proprietor of a trade mark (Annexure B to this judgment (the defendant's trade mark)) registered in the Register for goods in Classes 7, 9, 12 and 35. The defendant's application to register the defendant's trade mark in Class 25 is still pending.

[4] The OS applied for, among others, the following relief:

(1) a declaration that the entry of the defendant's trad