S.A. PLYWOOD INDUSTRY Vs. RAJAN STEEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid two applications have been heard together and have been disposed of by this common judgment and order as the same have arisen out of the same suit and involvement of controversies in both the applications in common. In the above suit the Plaintiff has claimed relief in the form of permanent injunction on account of infringement of the trade mark "Globe" bearing No. 652755 and also on the ground of illegal and wrongful passing of the Defendants product as being the product of the Plaintiff using the above trade mark and also monetary relief.

(2.) The first mentioned notice of motion has been taken out by the Plaintiff for interlocutory relief in the shape of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants and/or his agents and servants from using the above mark in connection with their product viz. plywood. Admittedly, both the parties are carrying on the manufacturing, selling and/or marketing the plywood and plywood products using the same trade mark "Globe". Admittedly, again both the parties have got their registration of their respective marks in connection with the same product and under the same classification. Admittedly the Plaintiff's registration was made on January 23, 1995 while the Defendants' registration was made on August 16, 1995. Under such circumstances, it is submitted by the Learned Counsels that both the parties have mutually asked for cancellation of the marks before the trademark registry. This mutual proceedings before the trademark registry is still pending.

(3.) At the ad interim stage the Plaintiff obtained order of injunction for the limited period. However by efflux of time the period of the interim order is no longer subsisting. During subsistence of the interim order the Defendants made an application for vacating of the interim order and/or for dismissal of the suit being the second mentioned application. Now, there is no question of vacating of the interim order in view of the above situation. Only question is whether the interim order initially passed should be restored or not.