A person cannot carry on business in a manner that represents it as the business of another or is connected with another's business, and the adoption of a deceptively similar trade name can lead to passing off and confusion among the public.

( 1 ) VIRENDRA DRESSES, plaintiff/appellants challenge the judgment and order dt. 21-7-1981 of the Additional District Judge, Delhi refusing to issue a temporary injunction restraining the respondent/ defendant namely VARINDRA GARMENTS from adopting the said trade name in relation to ready made garments business or any other allied business amounting to passing off and from giving an impression to the trade and public that the defendant is associated with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction for passing off and rendition of accounts against the defendant alleging that the plaintiffs constituted a partnership firm, manufacturing and dealing in all kinds of readymade garments at Ashok Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi under the name and style of VIRENDRA DRESSES since August, 1978, that their sales in 1978 were to the tune of Rs. 50,000. 00 and in 1980-81 the gross sales rose to Rs. 2,50,000. 00 , that they adopted their trade name VIRENDRA DRESSES from the name of a partner, namely Virender Jain, that their application for registration of trade name device VIRENDRA DRESSES has been pending with the trade mark registry, that the defendant in January, 1980 adopted a confusingly and deceptively similar trade name VARINDRA GARMENTS which is being run in the same street as that of the plaintiffs, that the adoption of trade name VARINDRA GARMENTS was done by the defendant with the dishonest intention of trading upon the established reputation of the plaintiffs, that the defendant had full knowledge of the status and reputation of the plaintiff s trade name, that the business of the plaintiffs and the defendant was of a similar nature, that the traders and the public who used to visit the plaintiff s shop for their purchases of readymade garments are bound to consider the defendant as directly associated with the plaintiffs or they may consider as a branch of the plaintiffs, that the trade name adopted by the defendant is exactly similar, that he is using the word garments in an in. significant manner and the main word is varindra that the defendant s place of business is only 50 yards away from the plaintiffs place of business, that the action of the defendant has resulted into actual deception causing loss of business and reputation to the plaintiffs, that the business of the defendant was meagre as compared to the old and established business of the plaintiffs, that the defendant shall not suffer any loss in changing the name. The plaintiffs along with the suit filed an application for temporary injunction. The defendant in his written statement and reply to the injunction application submitted that VARINDRA was the name of a member of Hindu Undivided Family of the defendant, that Varinder was the younger brother of the defendant, that he started his business in the beginning of 1980, that the two trade names of the plaintiffs and the defendant were entirely different in words and spelling, that his work of readymade garments was limited to maxi, gowns and gents shirts which items were not prepared by the plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissing the application for the grant of temporary injunction has observed that the trade name VARINDRA GARMENTS is distinctly different from the name VIRENDRA DRESSES and as such there cannot be any confusion in the mind of the customers. It was held that the trade name of the defendant was not deceptively or confusingly similar to the trade name of the plaintiff. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

( 2 ) IT is well known that no man is entitled to carry on his business in such a way as to represent that it is the business of another or is in any way connected with the business of another. A person has a legitimate right to carry on business under his own name but he cannot carry on the business which may have the effect of passing off his goods as the goods of other. The plaintiffs have been carrying on their business in readymade garments since Augu