B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark bluestar. Registerd trade mark consists of the words BLUE-STAR and a device of the Star. The registration was granted to the plaintiff in 1972 and according to the plaintiff it has sales of crores of rupees. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is manufacturing water coolers. The allegation in the plaint is that the defendants have also started manufacturing water coolers and are selling the same under the mark COOLSTAR. The mark of the defendants has been advertised in the newspaper as consisting of the words COOLSTAR and also the device of Star. In the advertisement, a copy of which has been filed, it is indicated that the mark of the defendants is registered. According to the plaintiff a legal notice was given to the defendants requiring the defendants to desist from using the said mark. Defendants counsel sent a reply dated 27th February, 1986 in which it was stated that the COOLSTAR was a registered trade mark of the defendants. ( 3 ) ALONG with the plaint an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 was filed in which it was prayed that the interim injunction may be granted becaused the defendants are guilty of infringement of the plaintiff s trade mark. ( 4 ) IN view of the fact that the aforesaid reply sent on behalf of the defendants has stated that COOLSTAR was a registered trade mark of the defendants and also in view of the fact that in the newspaper where advertisement was published it was given out as if the mark of the defendants was registered no interim injunction was granted keeping in view the provisions of Section 28 (3) of the Trade Mark Act. ( 5 ) THE true picture has, however, been revealed now after appearance has been entered into on behalf of Defendant No. 1. It has been admitted that in fact COOLSTAR is not a registered trade mark of the defendant. They are certainly using the said mark along with the device of Star but no registration has been granted to them. Therefore, the statement which was made in the aforesaid reply written on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff was incorrect. Similary, it was wrongly represented to the general public that the mark was registered when the same advertised as such. Therefore, the statement which was made in the aforesaid reply written on behalf of the defendants to the plaintiff was incorrect. Similary, it was wrongly represented to the general public that the mark was registered when the same advertised as such. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant No. I states that the defendant is willing to desist from using the device of the Star but may be permitted to continue to use the words COOLSTAR. Prima facie it would appear that the mark of the defendant No. 1, namly, COOLSTAR along with the device of Star may amount to an infringement of the plaitiff s trade mark BLUE- STAR with the device of Star and an injunction would ordinarily issue specially when the mark of the defendant No. 1 is not registered, contrary to what has been claimed by it earlier. In view, however, of the fact that the defendant No. 1 is willing to undertake not to use the device of Star it would mean what whereas earlier the two marks had two common features, namely, the word STAR and the device of Star, now after the device of Star being removed by the defendant No. 1, there will be only one common feature between the two marks, i. e. , the word STAR. It Would then be arguable as to whether the words COOLSTAR without device of Star can be regarded as infringement of the plaintiff s trade mark of bluestar . According to defendant No. 1 the word STAR is associated with the trade of water coolers and in this behalf he seeks to refer to refrigeration machinery which is manufacturing and selling by Korean and Cyprus companies which use the word STAR in their product s name. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, of course, submits that the contention of the learned counsel is not correct and the word STAR is not associated with refrigeration machineries and including water coolers. In my view, looking at the evidence as well as the facts stated here- inabove, it would be fair and equitable that the defendant No. 1 be restrained from using the device of Star in their mark and further they be required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this court for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. Ordered accordingly. The security should be furnished within six weeks from today. 5,00,000. Ordered accordingly. The security should be furnished within six weeks from today. IA stands disposed of. ( 7 ) LET the suit be listed for Directions on 28th September, 1988.