S. B. Wad ( 1 ) THE plaintiff manufactures and markets various gas appliances under the trade mark superflame . It is not a registered rade mark. They have alleged that the defendants are passing off their gas appliances by using the word superflame in their trade name. ( 2 ) BY an interim application (I. A. 536 of 1984) the plaintiff has sought an order restraining the defendants from using the said trade name and acting in any manner to pass off their goods as the goods of the plaintiff. On this application, an interim order was passed by me restraining the defendants from selling gas stoves under the name superflame in any form. I have now heard the counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) PASSING off is recognised as a tort with the object of preventing unfair trading and appropriation property rights of a trader. The object is to prevent unfair competition and undue benefit being taken of the reputation (already achieved) of rival traders, by means of false or mise leading devices. The defendants contention is that the word super- FLAME is a combination of the word super and flame - flame is a normal descriptive word and super is a laudatory preposition. They submit that the plaintiff cannot claim my monopoly in the use of the said words as they have not acquired distiactiveness. They have cited number of decisions primarily concerning registration of a trade mark, showing that a trade mark cannot be registered if it is not distinctive. ( 4 ) THE law on the question is quite clear. There is no inherent antithesis between descriptive names and distinctiveness. They are not mutally exclusive. Being the question of fact it is to be established by evidence as to whether descriptive name has acquired the status of distinctiveness. The other submission of the defendants is that their trade mark is hot FLAME . There is no confusion in the trade mark of the plaintiff and of defendant s trade mark. Blue Super Flame products is a trade name and, therefore, there is no attempt at passing off by the defendants. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff has vide (Annexure- a ) furnished the list of nine articles such as Super Flame Deluxe Gas Stove, Superflame Princess Cooking Range etc. Blue Super Flame products is a trade name and, therefore, there is no attempt at passing off by the defendants. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff has vide (Annexure- a ) furnished the list of nine articles such as Super Flame Deluxe Gas Stove, Superflame Princess Cooking Range etc. He has also furnished details of the annual sales and turnover for the year 1975-76 to 1981-82 in (Annexure- b ). The annual turnover for the year 1975-76 was Rs. 1,41,21,993. 71, for 1981-82 the turnover was Rs. 14,64,90,929. 36. Vide (Annexure- c ) the plaintiff has furnished the statement of expenditure incurred on publicity, advertisement and sales promotion. In the year 1975-76 it was Rs. 28,727. 15, in 1981-82 they were Rs. 14,80,394 16. (Annexure- d ) furnished with the plaint is a list of branches at various places in India. They are at Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, Bangalore. Madras, Secunderabad, Kanpur, Gauhati, Chandigarh, Noida, Jaipur, Vishakhapatnam. The range of gas appliances, amount spent on publicity, branches for sale of the products in all important cities in India and the annual turnover of Rs. 14 crores in the year 1981-82 are prima-facie indicative of the fact that the word superflame used by the plaintiff has acquired distinctiveness. The products are widely advertised all over India on Radio, TV, Daily Newspaper and Magazine. Plaintiff has alleged that defendant No. 2 Ganga Ram Verma was engaged for long time by the plaintiff for painting the gas appliances of the plaintiff. He is the father of Shri Kant Verma who the defendants allege is the sole proprietor of the defendant No. 1. The allegation that defendant No. 2 was working with the plaintiff and had, therefore, acquired knowledge of manufacturing of gas appliances is not expressly denied by the defendants. What is stated in the written statement is that defendant No. 2 Shri Ganga Ram Verma is neither the partner nor proprietor of defendant No. 1 firm and has no title or interest in defendant No. 1 firm. The association of defendant No. 2 with the plaintiff is prima facie sufficient to hold that the defendant s assertion that they had no knowledge of the plaintiff s trade mark is untenable. It is true that the defendants are using the word superflame only in their trade name. The association of defendant No. 2 with the plaintiff is prima facie sufficient to hold that the defendant s assertion that they had no knowledge of the plaintiff s trade mark is untenable. It is true that the defendants are using the word superflame only in their trade name. The said trade name with the word superflame is distinctively and and conspicuously displaced on the gas stove manufactured by the defendants. This is my prima facie opinion is likely to mislead and deceive the common customer. Defendants submit that that is the requirement of I. S. I. May be so. There should be no confusion in the mind of customers as regards the goods and persons manufacturing. This as so is the requirement of I. S I. though for different purpose. The superflame products are so widely advertised that on seeing the advertisement a common customer would ask for the gas appliances with the said name. He does not know what is the difference between a trade mark and a trade name. It is rightly said that this distinction exists in the minds of lawyers but not of common customers. The plaintiff has alleged that they are using the trade mark from the year 1968 and they have furnished the figures for the year 1975-76. The turnover figures for the year 1975-76 are over a crore of Rupees. Therefore, it will be reasonable to assume that the manufacture or sale had started at last five years before 1975. The defendants have not furnished any documentary evidence to show as to when they started using the trade name with the word superflame . Plaintiff asserts that very recently i. e. in November, 1983 the defendants have started selling or advertising their products. A copy of the hindustan Times dated November 14, 1983 showing the defendants advertisement is placed on the record by the plaintiff. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I restrain the defendants or their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or directly or indirectly dealing in gas appliances under the trade name Blue Super Flame Industries or any other trade name of which the word superflame forms a portion or from doing any other act which is likely to lead to passing off of the defendants goods and their business as goods and business of the plaintiff till the disposal of the suit.