Dalveer Bhandari ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual injunction and rendition of accounts. The plaintiff is a partnership firm which was established in the year 1976 and since then the firm has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing lungis . ( 2 ) THE plaintiff firm has been using the term "sun BRAND" as its trade mark in relation to its product since 1. 4. 1978. According to the averments of the plaint, the plaintiff firm applied for registration of the said trade mark "sun BRAND" for its product under application No. 536069 dated 9. 10,1990 in clause 24, claiming user since 1. 4. 1978. ( 3 ) IT is further averred in the application that the trade mark "sun BRAND" on account of long established, continuous, regular and extensive user has acquired distinctiveness so much so that the said trade mark has come up to be exclusively identified and recognized with the said product. It is also averred in the plaint that the plaintiff during the past so many years has established large and extensive sale of his product under the aforesaid trade mark "sun BRAND" throughout the country and has been spending substantial amount on the publicity of the trade mark. The plaintiff-firm s annual sales of the product under the trade mark "sun BRAND" and/or artistic label "sun BRAND" run into lakhs of rupees. The plaintiff-firm has also filed statement showing the annual sales figures of the said product alongwith the bills to demonstrate that the plaintiff-firm has been using the trade mark "sun BRAND" since 1. 4. 1978. ( 4 ) IN the plaint, it is also averred that the use of identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark and artistic label "sun BRAND" by the defendants for marketing its products of the aforesaid goods, is causing confusion and/or deception in the minds of purchasing public and trade and the defendant is carrying on its aforesaid illegal/unlawful trade activities with malafide intention to trade upon the reputation and goodwill in its reputed trade mark "sun BRAND" and artistic label "sun BRAND" and to earn illegal easy money by doing so. ( 5 ) THE plaintiff-firm has further mentioned that the purchasers and intending purchasers of the said goods are generally domestic servants, household ladies and general public from all walks of life which is unwary class of purchasers and who demand and recognize the plaintiff-firm s goods by the trade mark "sun BRAND" and the artistic label "sun BRAND". The confusion and deception among the public and trade is inevitable due to close deceptive similarity of the trade mark and artistic label "sun BRAND". According to the plaintiff-firm, the defendant is passing off its inferior and substandard goods at lower price as and for the quality goods of the plaintiff-firm. The plaintiff has averred that in the last week of July. 1991, the plaintiff-firm learnt that the defendant had started using the plaintiff s trade mark and immediately thereafter in August, 1991, the plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant for injunction. The suit was registered by the order of this court on 21. 8. 1991 and notice was issued on the interim application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant has filed the written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2. In the reply, the averments of the suit and the application have been denied. In the reply, it is mentioned that the trade mark "sun BRAND" is a registered trade mark of M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Panna Lal with respect to lung is and if the plaintiffs are using the trade mark with respect to lungis, they are guilty of infringement of the trade mark of owners of the trade mark "sun BRAND". ( 6 ) IT is further mentioned in the reply that the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right to the label or artistic work. Number of similar labels regarding the same goods lungis are being used by different traders. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-firm has drawn my attention to a large number of documents to demonstrate that they have been using the said trade mark for along time. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on AIR 1990 Delhi 233, to strengthen his submissions. The case of the plaintiff is a simple case of prior user and the trade mark has acquired reputation in the market. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on AIR 1990 Delhi 233, to strengthen his submissions. The case of the plaintiff is a simple case of prior user and the trade mark has acquired reputation in the market. According to the plaintiff, defendant s plea that the plaintiffs can-not claim exclusive right to trade under the trade mark "sun BRAND" is devoid of any merit. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendant in order to repudiate pleas of the plaintiff, has cited, Prima Chemicals Works and others v. Sukhdayal and others1 and M/s. Thapsons Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Ashoka Food Industries and another2. ( 9 ) WHEN these cases are analysed in proper perspective, they do not help the defendant in any manner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. ( 10 ) ON the basis of pleadings, documents on record, and submissions made at the Bar, the plaintiff is entitled to ad interim injunction. Consequently, I restraint the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, dealers and all other persons on their behalf, from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in lungis under the trade mark "sun BRAND" or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff s trade mark "sun BRAND". ( 11 ) NOTHING mentioned in the above order shall, however, prejudicially affect the rights of the parties on merits which are to be determined after trial.