K. Ramamoorthy ( 1 ) THE plaintiff has prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from publishing competition (Success) Review and from adopting the name deceptively similar to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff briefly stated as follows: ( 2 ) THE plaintiff Company started its business in the year 1964 in publishing the book competition Success Review and the words success added in the year 1971. The trade name of the plaintiff Competition Review appears in a special and particular manner in para 4 of the plaint. The Plaintiff has given a description of this book. Para 4 of the plaint is as follows: "that the trade name of the plaintiff "competition review" appears in a special and particular manner on each of its monthly issue/publication. The word competition is written in small alphabets with a capital c , followed by the word review below the word Competition which is much smaller in size The word success is in a rectangular box below the word competition and before the word review on the left side of the cover page the word Competition stretches across the front page followed by the word Review below it on the right side of the front page On top of the word competition the month of the issue/publication is given with the sale price of the magazine The face of the front page depicts a pictorial representation or a collage of pictures covering more than half of the front page and on the left side of the front cover there are writings about the salient features indicating the contents of the publication" ( 3 ) THE first defendant who is the Editor of M/s Chronicle Publications Pvt ltd. (defendant No 1) alongwith defendants 2 and 3 in or about September 1995, inter alia, published identical publication appearing the same trade name competition success Review It is the case of the plaintiff that the publication of the plaintiff has many special features of specific interest to the general public and in particular to the students who wish to appear in the competitive examinations It is the complaint of the plaintiff that the defendants have published the same set of questions in the same format and also copied the questions and answers published by the plaintiff It is also stated that the pattern adopted by the plaintiff is adopted by the defendants It is contended by the plaintiff that the colour scheme of the journal is also adopted by the defendants ( 4 ) THE defendants filed written statement contending that the defendants started the magazine Competition Chronicle in the year 1992 The Chronicle Group of Publications is the trade name adopted by the plaintiff and the word Chronicle is published within the word competition The Registrar of Newspaper has registered the name of the defendants magazine According to defendants there are number of magazine covering as many as subjects as covered by the plaintiff s magazine such as Competition Master, Competition wizard, Competition Refresher and the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the competition and the plaintiff has slept over for more than three years The defendants contended that the plaintiff cannot claim any copyright in the words Competition which is generic and general one ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the defendants contended that the Competition Master was published in the year 1959 and long before the plaintiff entered the market the word competition was being used and the plaintiff cannot claim any right on the premise that the plaintiff has registered its name under the Copy Right Act, 1957 ( 6 ). LEARNED counsel for the defendants referred to number of authorities namely, prem Singh Vs. M/s Ceeam Auto Inudstries AIR 1990 Delhi 233, K. C. Sashidhar vs. Smt. Roopa AIR 1993 Mad 120 , Amar Dutta Vs. Bijoli Grill Caterers and ors. AIR 1985 Cal 141 (CAL), Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. Vs. Rupee Times air 1995 Vol. 35 DRJ page 30 and also Shri Gopal Engg. M/s Ceeam Auto Inudstries AIR 1990 Delhi 233, K. C. Sashidhar vs. Smt. Roopa AIR 1993 Mad 120 , Amar Dutta Vs. Bijoli Grill Caterers and ors. AIR 1985 Cal 141 (CAL), Rupee Gains Tele-Times (P) Ltd. Vs. Rupee Times air 1995 Vol. 35 DRJ page 30 and also Shri Gopal Engg. and Chemical Wroks vs. M/s Pomx Laboratory AIR 1992 Delhi 302 on the question of laches I have considered the contentions of the parties in the light of documents filed by the parties and i am of the view that the plaintiff has not made out any case for injunction The word Competition is an English word Therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right on the basis of registration under the Copyright Act. It is clear from the records the a number of persons are running journals under the word competition and the claim of the plaintiff that it came to know about the defendants journal in September 1995 is putforth for the purpose of this case. Under similar circumstances, Hon ble Mr Justice s K Mahajan had occasioned to consider the question in Rupee Gains Tele- Times (P) lid. Vs. Rupee Times DRJ (35) page 30. The learned judge has observed that no person can claim any exclusive right in the word Rupee. The learned Judge has also held that there is no scope for any description in the use of word Rupee. I respectfully agree with the reasoning given the learned Judge and I hold that the paintiff cannot claim any exclusive of the word and I do not find any similarity in the colour scheme adopted by the defendant without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties at the time of of the case. I have no hesitation in dismissing the petition for injunction. 1 do not want to enter into discussion on the merits in greater details at this stage IA Nos. 8819/95 and 9681/95 stand disposed of Post the suit for framing of issues on 01. 07. 1%