Lokeshwar Prasad, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff, named above, has filed the presentsufor permanent injunction and for rendition of accounts, averring that the plaintiis a Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 195having its registered office at Hindustan Lever House. 165-66, Backbay Reclamtion, Bombay with a branch office at Express Building, Bahadur Shah Zafar Mar;new Delhi and that Shri P. N. Monga, Branch Legal Manager of the plainticompany is competent to sign and verify the plaint and to institute the present suon behalf of the plaintiff-Company. 1. 1 It is alleged that the plaintiffs are carrying on the business as manufactureand sellers, inter-alia, of cleaning powers and other substances of laundry use ansoaps etc. for the last several years. The plaintiffs, it is alleged, since the year 196 are marketing detergent cakes under the name and trade mark rin and the tradmark rin as well as the label are registered under the Trade and Merchandis Marks Act, 1958. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are also the registered proprietoof the artistic work in label "rin and holds registration under the Copyright Act. The plaintiffs are manufacturing "rni detergent cakes in the pack of 125 gms. an280 gms. and the plaintiff s rin label consists of blue background, red bolelettering with white shades. It is further alleged that on account of long anextensive user of the said trade mark wide advertisement and skill in sa. promotion, the detergent cake of the plaintiffs under the Trade Mark rin hasachieved,unique reputation, goodwill and name among the trade and consumethroughout the country and that the plaintiff s sale of rin runs into lacs of rupeper year. 1. 2 It is averred that the majority of the consumers of rin are from rurareas, who do not know English and recognise that the plaintiff s product rin onby its colour scheme i. e. , blue background, red letterings with white shades, writtein characteristic manner in English and Hindi and that the abovesaid get. up of tolabel has become distinctive of plaintiff s detergent cake under the trade may rin . ve 1. 3 It is further alleged that in April, 1988, the plaintiffs came to know that the isdefendants had started manufacturing, selling and marketing step detergerkcake in 125 gms. and 250 gms. up of tolabel has become distinctive of plaintiff s detergent cake under the trade may rin . ve 1. 3 It is further alleged that in April, 1988, the plaintiffs came to know that the isdefendants had started manufacturing, selling and marketing step detergerkcake in 125 gms. and 250 gms. packs and that the defendants are using the wrapperwhich are similar to the wrappers of the plaintiffs i. e. with blue back-ground witacredletterings and white shades. The word step it is alleged, is written on thewrappers of the defendants is the same characteristic manner and has the same gonup, size and weight as that of the plaintiffs. It is alleged that on account of the abovsesimilarities of the wrappers and get up, a great confusion has arisen in the markand plaintiff s sale is adversely affected. The public, more particularly the illiteratepersons, who purchase "rin detergent cakes, consider that the detergent cakeunder the trade market step is another quality of detergent manufactured andbrought into the market by the plaintiffs. 1. 4. It is further alleged that the defendants were approached by the plaintiffson 11th and 12/10/1988 and Shri K. M. Shukia, Managing Director of thedefendant s, agreed to change the get up but did not do so and has now declinedto do so. It is alleged that defendant s use of label under the mark step isdeceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs and is substantiallycopies from the plaintiff s Copyright and thus amounts to infringement of plaintiff strade mark and Copyright. 1. 5 It is further averred that the defendant s goods under the mark and label step which are low priced, inferior in quality have caused grave and irreparableinjury to plaintiff s reputation, name, right and goodwill and have resulted inpassing off the abovesaid goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs. 1. 6 It is alleged that the plaintiffs would suffer further injury in their business,name and reputation unless the defendants are restrained by an order and decreeof this Court from using the offending mark and label. 1. 6 It is alleged that the plaintiffs would suffer further injury in their business,name and reputation unless the defendants are restrained by an order and decreeof this Court from using the offending mark and label. It is also alleged that by usingthe offending label-mark step in respect of detergent cakes, in the manner statedabove, the defendants have made wrongful gain from the reputation, goodwill,name and long standing of the plaintiffs and therefore the defendants are also liableto render accounts into the profits made by the defendants since the adoption of theoffending mark step . It has been prayed by the plaintiff-Company that a decreefor permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs-Company and againstthe defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockists and allother persons acting on behalf of the defendants from infringing plaintiff sregistered trade marks 214094 and 262994 and plaintiff s Copyright No. A-44935/85 and from passing off defendant s goods/cakes/detergent as that of plaintiffs. Ithas also been prayed that the defendants be directed to deliver upon affidavit to theplaintiffs all offending stationery wrappers, cartons and other material bearing theoffending trade mark step for purposes of destruction and/or obliteration. Theplaintiffs have also prayed for rendition of accounts and for awarding the costs ofthe proceedings. ( 2 ) THE claim of the plaintiffs has been resisted by the defendants who have fileda written statement taking certain preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit. On merits, it has been contended in the writtenstatement that the colour combination scheme of blue, white and red colours, usedin the wrappers by the plaintiff-Company for marketing the detergent cakes, hasbecome quite common to the trade for the last so many years and a large numberof manufacturers of detergent cakes are using the said colour scheme openly for the last so many years is respect of their wrappers for sale of their products ofdetergent cakes. It is further stated in the written statement that the size and weightof the detergent cakes of all the manufacturers are also the same as governed by theweight and Measurement Rules. It is further stated in the written statement that the size and weightof the detergent cakes of all the manufacturers are also the same as governed by theweight and Measurement Rules. It is contended that the wrappers used by thedefendants cannot at all cause any confusion or deception in the market and tradeand that the mark step is depicted on the label of the defendants so prominentlyand boldely that it seems reckless to say that even an illiterate person can beconfused or deceived by the defendant s detergent cake step when he actuallywants to buy plaintiff s detergent rin . It is stated in the written statement thatthe present suit filed by the plaintiffs merits dismissal being false, frivolous andvexatious. It is prayed that the same be dismissed with costs. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a replication, controverting the contentions raisedin written statement and reiterating the averments made in the plaint. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the learned Predecessor of this Court videorder dated 3/03/1989 framed the following issues : 1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?2. Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark and copyright ofthe plaintiff?3. Whether the goods of the defendant under label step are being passedoff and/or are likely to pass off as the detergent cake of the plaintiff smanufacture?4. Whether the copyright in the label of the plaintiff, get up, size andweight have become common to this trade ? If so, its effect. ?5. Whether the plaintiff has no right to raise objection to theuser of thelabel in dispute as alleged in para 4 of the preliminary objections of thewritten statement ?6. Whether the suit for rendition of account is not maintainable ?7. Whether there was delay and latches on the part of the plaintiff in filingthis suit ? If so, its effect ?. 8. whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of Court feeand jurisdiction ?9. Relief. ( 5 ) SINCE the defendants did not care to appear without any reasonable cause,the learned Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 11/07/1994 directed thatthe defendants be proceeded ex-parte in the present proceedings. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have adduced ex-parte evidence in support of its case bymeans of affidavit and has filed the affidavit of Shri Prem Prakash Anand, Lawofficer of the plaintiff Company by way of evidence. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have adduced ex-parte evidence in support of its case bymeans of affidavit and has filed the affidavit of Shri Prem Prakash Anand, Lawofficer of the plaintiff Company by way of evidence. Shri Prem Prakash Anand,law Officer of the plaintiff Company, in his affidavit dated the 1/07/1994, hasfully supported the case of the plaintiff Company. On the basis of facts, as stated bysaid Shri Prem Prakash Anand, in his affidavit dated the 1/07/1994, which hasgone on record unrebutted and unchallenged which I see no reason to disbelieveand other material on record, it is established that the plaintiff-Company ismarketing detergent cakes under the name and trade mark rin and the trademark rin as well as the label are registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marksact, 1958 and Copyright Act. It is also established that the plaintiffs are manufacturing rin cakes of 125 gms and 250 gms. and that the plaintiffs rin labelconsists of blue background, red bold lettering with white shades and that onaccount of long and extensive user of the said mark/trade mark, wide advertise-ment and skill in sale promotion the detergent cake rin of the plaintiffs hasachieved unique reputation, goodwill and name among the trade and consumersthroughout the Country and that the sale figures of the plaintiffs run into lacs ofrupees per annum. It is also established that the majority of the consumers of rin are from rural areas who do not know English and recognise plaintiff s product rin only by its colour scheme i. e. , blue background, red letterings with whiteshades, written in characteristic manner in English and in Hindi and that theabovesaid get up of the label has become distinctive of the plaintiff s detergents cakeunder the mark rin . ( 7 ) IT is also established that the defendants are also carrying on similarbusiness and selling and marketing detergent cakes under the mark step and forselling and marketing their products the defendants are also using wrappers whichare similar like that of the plaintiff s wrappers with blue background with redletterings and white shadows. The mark step is written on the wrapper in thesame characteristic manner and same get up. The detergent cakes under the mark step are of the same size and same weight and the colour of the detergent cakesand style is also similar as that of the plaintiffs. The mark step is written on the wrapper in thesame characteristic manner and same get up. The detergent cakes under the mark step are of the same size and same weight and the colour of the detergent cakesand style is also similar as that of the plaintiffs. It is also established that on accountof similarity of the wrappers and get up thereof, a great confusion and deceptionhas arisen in the market and if the defendants continue to use the mark step inthe manner stated above the business and reputation of the plaintiffs is likely tosuffer immensly. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, during the course of arguments on 12/08/1996, has submitted that he gives up the relief for rendition of accountscontained in Clause (e) of para 23 of the plaint and the same may be treated asdeleted. The above prayer, so made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, for thedeletion of the abovesaid relief, was allowed by this Court vide order dated 1 2/08/1996. ( 9 ) IN view of the above discussion, die suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and anex-parte decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants,agents, stockists and all other persons acting for and on their behalf from infringingthe plaintiffs registered trade marks 214094 and 262994 and Copyright No. 44935/84 and also restraining them from passing of the goods/cakes/detergents of thedefendants as that of the plaintiffs, is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and againstthe defendants with costs. The defendants are further directed to deliver uponaffidavit to the plaintiffs all the offending stationery wrappers, cartons and othermaterial bearing the offending trade mark step within eight weeks from the dateof this order for the purpose of destruction and/or obliteration thereof. Decreesheet be drawn up accordingly and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.