C. L. Chaudhry ( 1 ) BY this suit the plaintiff claims perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing selling or otherwise dealing in hosiery goods or readymade garments under the trade mark my Child or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff s trade mark MY CHILD, and also for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff s copyright by printing, publishing, reproducing or otherwise dealing in artistic label entitled MY CHILD. ( 2 ) THE plaint proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiff is a partnership firm duly registered under the provisions of Indian Partnership Act. Mr, Rajiv Makkar is one of the partners and is competent to file the suit on behalf of the plaintiff firm. Since the year 1977, the plaintiff firm has been carrying on business of manufacturing and marketing hosiery goods, ready made garments, boots, sleepers, nappies and pampers etc. Since 1977 the plaintiff has been using the trade mark MY CHILD for their hosiery goods and readymade garments and other goods. The plaintiff claims to be the first adopter, user, true owner, lawful and rightful proprietor of the said trade mark MY CHILD in respect of the said goods manufactured and marketed by it and has exclusive rights to use the same. It is furher averred that the plaintiff has been using colourful, distinctive and eye catching labels/stickers for the marketing of their said products since the year 1977. The colour scheme, get-up, lay-out, writing style and arrangement of the said label of the plaintiff entitled MY CHILD is unique and artistic and the same constitutes an original artistic work in which the plaintiff has legal and vested copyrights under the provisions of the copyrights Act 1957. The plaintiff is the true owner of the copyright in the said label entitled MY CHILD and has exclusive rights to use publication thereof. ( 3 ) THAT the plaintiff has given wide publicity to its trade mark MY CHILD and artistic label entitled MY CHILD and the said products under the impugned trade mark and label connotes and denotes the goods and merchandise of the plaintiff s origin and none else. The plaintiff s sales of the aforesaid goods under the trade mark MY CHILD runs in several lakhs of rupees. The plaintiff s sales of the aforesaid goods under the trade mark MY CHILD runs in several lakhs of rupees. On account of the superior quality of the said goods and due to continuous use of the trade mark and label entitled MY CHILD for the last more than 7 years the plaintiff s trade mark and label have acquired unique reputation and goodwill in public and trade and the goods under the Trade Mark MY CHILD and label entitled MY CHILD have come to b3 exclusively identified and associated with the plaintiff by the public and trade. ( 4 ) THE defendants have recently started the manufacture and marketing of hosiery goods and readymade garments under the identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark MY CHILD The use and adoption of the trade mark MY CHILD by the defendants is in clear and flagrant violation of the plaintiff s vested, legal and exclusive rights in the use of the trade mark MY CHILD being continuously, openly and extensively used by it since the year 1977. The defendants have also adopted the identical labels/stickers and/or deceptively similar labels/stickers bearing the trade mark MY CHILD which acts further amount to infringement of the plaintiff s aforesaid vested and legal copyrights. The defendants have no right or justification to adopt and use the plaintiff s well known and reputed trade mark and label MY CHILD. The act of the defendants is a clear violation of the plaintiff s vested and exclusive rights. The defendants are well aware about the plaintiff s well known and reputed trade mark and copyrights and they deliberately with a dishonest and malafide intention adopted the plaintiff s reputed trade mark and label only to trade upon the plaintiff s hard earned reputation and to earn profits in illegal manner for which they are not entitled. The purchasers and intending purchasers of the said goods such as hosiery and readymade garments are the housewives and ladies which is an unwary class of purchasers which demand and recognise the plaintiff s products by the trade MY CHILD and artistic label MY CHILD. The confusion and deception is invitable among the public and trade due to close deceptive similarity of the trade marks and labels. The defendants are guilty of passing off their inferior and sub-standard products as and for the superior quality products of the plaintiffs. The confusion and deception is invitable among the public and trade due to close deceptive similarity of the trade marks and labels. The defendants are guilty of passing off their inferior and sub-standard products as and for the superior quality products of the plaintiffs. In these premises the plaintiff claims the relief of perpetual injunction. ( 5 ) THE defendants were served in this case and they filed written statement. Vide order dated 21-4-87 they were proceeded ex-parte. ( 6 ) EX-PARTE evidence of the plaintiff has been recorded. Mr. Rajiv Makkar appeared as Public Witness 1 on behalf of the plaintiff. He deposed that he was one of the partners of the plaintiff firm and was conversant with the facts of the case. The plaintiff started-manufacturing hosiery goods in 1977 under the trade mark MY CHILD The plaintiff has built up a good reputation regarding this trade mark. The plaintiff firm has given a lot of publicity to the trade mark MY CHILD and the publicity appeared in various magazines and periodicals. Label of the plaintiff MY CHILD was registered under the Copyright Act. He further deposed that in 1984 he visited Bombay and came to know that the defendants were selling their goods under the trade mark MY CHILD in respect of hosiery goods. Later, he also saw the goods of the defendant being sold at Delhi. In spite of pursuasion the defendant has not acceded to the requests of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable loss on account of the use of the trade mark by the defendant in respect of hosiery goods. He proved various documents such as labels and bills. ( 7 ) I have considered the case and perused the documentary as well as oral evidence of the plaintiff. In my opinion, the plaintiff has been able to establish his claim. Accordingly, an ex parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in hosiery goods or readymade garments under the trade mark MY CHILD or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff s trade mark MY CHILD. Accordingly, an ex parte decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in hosiery goods or readymade garments under the trade mark MY CHILD or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff s trade mark MY CHILD. The defendants are further restrained by means of perpetual injunction from infringing the plaintiff s copyright by printing, publishing, reproducing or otherwise dealing in the artistic label entitled MY CHILD or any other label identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff s artistic label MY CHILD. The defendants are further restrained from passing off the hosiery and readymade garments under the trade mark MY CHILD. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit Since the defendants were ex parte, other relief of rendition of account claimed by the plaintiff is declined. Decree may be drawn. File be consigned.