Judgment :- Shivaraj Patil, J. 1. None appeared for the appellant, even though called twice, once in the forenoon and for the second time in the afternoon. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. In this appeal, we will refer to the parties as they were arrayed in the suit, C.S.No. 215 of 1981 for convenience. 3. This appeal is by the plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16. 1989 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.215 of 1981. 4. Briefly stated the facts, leading to the filing of this appeal, are the following. The plaintiff filed C.S.No.215 of 1981 seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade marks "Seyadu Beedi" by using the offending "Jeya Ganesh Beedi" by using the offending "Jeya Ganesh Beedi" wrappers, both big and small, which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark and further restrain the defendant from passing of their beedies as the beedies of the plaintiff, by using the above said offending Jeya Ganesh Beedi trade mark wrappers, which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark wrappers. The plaintiff states that it is a well established firm manufacturing and selling beedies, ever since 1949. Since 1957, it is using the beedies manufactured by it trade mark label "Seyadu Beedi" together with the distinctive got up and colour scheme. The plaintiff has also registered the said trade mark under Nos. 264306 and 264308 in class 34 and has renewed it from time to time. The plaintiff has spent considerable amounts and made efforts in promoting the sales in its products Seyadu Beedi, which has acquired valuable reputation and goodwill of the said trade mark. There has been ever increasing demand for the said product all over India and the total turnover of the said product since its introduction, till the date of filing the suit, exceeded Rs. 655 lakhs. During March, 1981 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had commenced selling beedies with a trade mark "Jeyaganesh Beedi" packed in identical colour scheme and get up and selling its beedies in the City of Madras. 655 lakhs. During March, 1981 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had commenced selling beedies with a trade mark "Jeyaganesh Beedi" packed in identical colour scheme and get up and selling its beedies in the City of Madras. The defendant had deliberately copied the overall get up and colour scheme and design of the plaintiffs trade mark "Seyade Beedi" wrappers, both big and small in all respects purely with a view to deceive the unwary purchasers and cause confusion in the market. The plaintiff further pleaded that the defendant was selling inferior quality goods at a lesser price. 5. The defendant having entered appearance in the suit filed written statement, contesting the claim of the plaintiff, contending that the plaintiffs trade mark does not have distinctive get up and colour scheme of its own. Even assuming that the plaintiff has registered its trade mark, it has not renewed its trade mark and it was not in force as on the date of filing the suit. It was also denied that the plaintiff product came to be associated with its said trade mark. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff had spent considerable amounts and made efforts in promoting sales. The defendant stated that the plaintiff has not acquired valuable reputation and goodwill of the trade mark in question. The averment of the plaintiff that unwary purchasers identify the plaintiffs beedies by its trade mark, was denied by the defendant. In short, the defendant denied all the material averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed in the suit. "(1) Is the defendants trade mark label a colourable imitation of the plaintiffs well established trade mark labels? .(2) Are the defendants guilty of infringing and passing off their trade mark as and for the well established trade mark of the plaintiff? .(3) Is the plaintiff entitled to relief of accounting and consequential damages? .(4) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? And additional issue was also framed to the following effect. "Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?" 7. The learned single Judge, after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree under appeal. And additional issue was also framed to the following effect. "Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit?" 7. The learned single Judge, after considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, in the light of the pleadings and evidence brought on record, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by the judgment and decree under appeal. Hence this appeal is by the plaintiff, as already stated above. 8. The learned single Judge, after referring to the decisions of this Court, in particular the decision in the case of S.P.S.Jayam and Co. v. Krishnamoorthy, 1911 (I) M.L.J. 286, recorded a finding against the defendant on the additional issue. In that view, the learned single Judge, held that this Court has got jurisdiction to try the suit. In the decision of S.P.S. Jayam and Co. v. Krishnamoorthy, 1977 (I) M.L.J. 286 aforementioned, it is clearly stated that even though the product with alleged offending mark had not come to the Madras market, there could be little doubt that the alleged infringement was not only at the place where the defendant marketed his goods, but also where the plaintiffs property itself was situated. In the same judgment, it is further held that in respect of a trade mark registered at the Madras office the situs of the property in the mark is at Madras. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs trade mark was registered at the office of Madras. In our view, it is unnecessary to refer to the other decisions on this point to burden this judgment, since the decision in the case of S.P.S. Jayam & Co. v. Krishnamoorthy, 1977 (I) M.L.J. 286 referred to and relied on by the learned single Judge is clear enough. 9. One of the contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement was that the suit filed by the plaintiff, without taking leave of the Court, was not maintainable. The learned single Judge in paragraph 7 of the judgment under appeal has clearly stated that by order dated 14. 1981, the Court had granted leave to the plaintiff to sue, even though obtaining of such leave to sue was not necessary. In this view, the contention of the defendant has to be rejected, when this Court has granted leave to sue. 10. 1981, the Court had granted leave to the plaintiff to sue, even though obtaining of such leave to sue was not necessary. In this view, the contention of the defendant has to be rejected, when this Court has granted leave to sue. 10. On the material issues 1 and 2, the learned single Judge has referred to, analysed and objectively assessed the evidence, both oral and documentary on record, keeping in view the principles stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Park Products v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1395. In the said decision, it was held: "It is, therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an over all similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to be mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other, if offered to him." On the basis of the evidence, the learned single Judge has come to the conclusion that the defendants trade mark was not deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark and that the defendant was not guilty of infringement or passing off, as alleged by the plaintiff. Ex. P-3 is the plaintiffs bigger size label in respect of the trade mark and Ex.P-4 is the smaller size in respect of the plaintiffs trade mark. The corresponding two marks of the defendant are Exts. P-5 and P-6. Ex. P-3 is the photo of a Muslim gentleman with a cap there in the left corner. In the corresponding label of the defendant in Ex. P-5, there is the photo of a very young boy in the centre. P.W. 1 has admitted that there is a vast difference between the two pictures of the Muslim gentleman with a cap and a young boy, found in Exts. P-3 and P-5 respectively. He has further admitted that the two pictures are not the same, because there is a long curve below the picture of the old man. P.W. 1 has admitted that there is a vast difference between the two pictures of the Muslim gentleman with a cap and a young boy, found in Exts. P-3 and P-5 respectively. He has further admitted that the two pictures are not the same, because there is a long curve below the picture of the old man. The other difference noticed are that the word and figure are found in Ex.P-3, but the same are not found in Ex. P-5. So also, the border in Ex. P-3 is different from the border in Ex. P-5. In the side label also the design is different, 11. P.W.2, the Manager of the plaintiff company in his evidence has admitted that normally beedies are purchased by names, for example, Kaja Beedies, Chokkalal Beedies and that in purchase of beedies the name is an important factor. Learned single Judge has also observed that the plaintiff did not examine any independent witness, particularly any of the persons who complained of similarity as regards the trade marks of the plaintiff and the defendant and that they were similar or the trade mark of the defendant was deceptive so as to indicate as the trade mark of the plaintiffs product. P.W. 1 has also admitted that the buyers of the bundles are the shop owners and not individuals. In our view, normally shop owners would not be misguided, that too with the said vital difference between the two labels. The learned single Judge, having considered the legible and clear points of distinction between the two labels, that too in the light of the oral evidence, has come to the conclusion that the defendants trade mark label was not colourable imitation of the plaintiffs trade mark lebels and that the defendant was not guilty of infringing of the trade mark and passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the finding recorded by the learned single Judge, on the basis of the evidence on all the issues are unassailable. 12. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we find no merit in this appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.