Judgment :- A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. Original Applications No. 4 to 6 of 2000 are filed by the applicants/plaintiffs for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from in any manner infringing the applicants, registered trade marks CASTROL, CASTROL GTX, CASTROL CRB and CASTROL LOGO by use of Trade Marks identical or deceptively similar, interim injunction restraining them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the respondents' lubricants oils and greases and for the applicants' products and also interim injunction restraining them from in any manner infringing the applicants' copyright in the Artistic Work Castrol Logo by reproduction of an identical logo or any logo which is a substantial reproduction of applicants Castrol Logo and from infringing the applicants' copyright in the Artistic work, etc. 2. Application No. 36 of 2000 has been filed by the applicants to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the premises of respondents 1 to 9, their relations or any of them and to seize and take into actual physical custody of the articles. Application No. 37 of 2000 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to combine causes of action in respect of passing off, infringement of trade mark and also infringement of copyright. 3. Application No. 500/2000 has been filed by the 1st defendant to reject the plaint, Application No. 501/2000 has been filed to revoke the order in Application No. 37/2000 granting permission to combine the cause of action, Applications No. 502 to 504 of 2000 have been filed to suspend the order of interim injunction granted in O.As.No. 5/2000, 6/2000 and 4/2000 respectively. 4. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows: The first applicant is carrying on business of manufacturing, processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products, anti-freezing compounds, hydraulic fluids, brake fluids, de-watering fluids, metal working and cutting oil and chemical materials in the United Kingdom and other countries all over world including India. The first applicant commenced its business activities in India in 1919. The 2nd applicant was established on 31.5.1979 with an object of processing and marketing high grade automotive and industrial lubricants and other products. The 2nd applicant had established factories with modern machineries to manufacture various lubricants and oils conforming to the International standard. The first applicant commenced its business activities in India in 1919. The 2nd applicant was established on 31.5.1979 with an object of processing and marketing high grade automotive and industrial lubricants and other products. The 2nd applicant had established factories with modern machineries to manufacture various lubricants and oils conforming to the International standard. They had employed chemists, chemical engineers and highly qualified technical personnel to manufacture lubricants and oils of high quality. Their products enjoy great reputation and goodwill all over India. The first applicant is the registered proprietor in India of several Trade Marks especially Trade Mark Castrol and a series of marks having Castrol as the prefix. The particulars of the registration in the name of the first applicant are also furnished. The registrations have been duly renewed and they are in force. All the registrations are part 'A' registrations, more than 7 years old and are conclusively valid under Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 5. A Registered User Agreement dated 26.8.1985 was entered into between the applicants 1 and 2 in respect of registration numbers. The 2nd applicant has been recorded as registered user of the said registrations till 16.11.2000. They are selling automobile oils and lubricants in containers/cartons having a distinctive colour scheme, get up and lay put. The distinctive features are (a) colour combination of red, green and white; (b) Castrol Logo in a green roundel with a white strip having the word Castrol in stylised script in red, the whole logo enshrined in a white square, and (c) distinctive get up and lay out. The first applicant is the proprietor of the Artistic Work Castrol Logo with the distinctive colour scheme. He is also the proprietor of packaging with distinctive colour scheme, get up and lay out. Under Section 40 of the Copyright Act, the first applicant's artistic work. Castrol Logo, Castrol packaging with distinctive colour scheme, get up and lay out enjoy automatic protection in India. They have been continuously publishing in India since 1968. The total turnover of the business carried on by the first applicant in United Kingdom and other countries excluding the 2nd applicant is also furnished. The approximate annual turnover of goods sold by the 1st applicant under the trade mark and the annual turnover of the goods sold by the 2nd applicant in India bearing the trade marks are also separately given. The approximate annual turnover of goods sold by the 1st applicant under the trade mark and the annual turnover of the goods sold by the 2nd applicant in India bearing the trade marks are also separately given. The applicants have been advertising extensively their products through various printed media including newspapers, magazines, etc. The 2nd applicant is spending several lakhs of rupees on advertising and publicity of the products bearing these trade marks. 6. By virtue of long, extensive and continuous use of the trade mark, it is exclusively identified by the trade and public. They enjoy great reputation and goodwill all over India. Recently the applicants came to know that the respondents are selling, distributing and dealing in spurious lubricants oils and greases under identical trade marks. The 2nd applicant received complaints from the consumers regarding the sale of spurious products. They are packing them in used containers/cartons of the applicants or packing them in containers/cartons identical to that of the applicants. The respondents are inter connected and they are distributing and selling spurious goods to various customers all over the State of Tamilnadu. In order to avoid multiple legal proceedings on the same cause of action, all of them are impleaded in the suit. 7. The second respondent procures the spurious Castrol Oils and other products from the first respondent. The 3rd respondent procures the spurious products from respondents 1 and 2. Similarly, respondents 3 to 9 are also procuring the spurious Castrol Oils and other products from respondents 1 and 2. The samples purchased from the respondents' premises were sent for laboratory test and the Analyst confirmed that the lubricants oils and greases sold by the respondents are spurious and substandard. The use of the respondents' oil is bound to damage the vehicle and also hamper the performance of the vehicle. Use of spurious oil may lead to road accidents and endanger to human life. The respondents are passing off and enabling others to pass off their substandard goods as that of the applicants. They have copied the applicants' artistic work, packaging, etc. There is no difference whatsoever between the applicants' artistic work and the artistic work bearing on the respondents' containers. They have also printed the name and addresses of the 2nd applicant as the manufacturer of spurious oil. The respondents ought to have printed their names and address. They have copied the applicants' artistic work, packaging, etc. There is no difference whatsoever between the applicants' artistic work and the artistic work bearing on the respondents' containers. They have also printed the name and addresses of the 2nd applicant as the manufacturer of spurious oil. The respondents ought to have printed their names and address. Under Section 39 of the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 of, the respondents ought to have printed the names and addresses as manufacturer and packer of spurious Castrol oils. They do not have a licence issued by the Central Government and they have violated the Essential Commodities Act. The respondents are committing fraud on the trade and public. It had caused confusion and deception amongst the trade and public. An ordinary purchaser cannot make out any difference between these two containers/cartons. The applicants have suffered and continue to suffer by the respondents' wrongful activities, which has caused irreparable loss and damage. Hence, these applications. 8. The first defendant instead of filing separate counter to the applications filed by the plaintiffs, filed number of applications to reject the plaint and also to revoke the order of injunction granted in the various applications. The order of interim injunction was passed on 7.1.2000 and the order was sent only on 11.1.2000, four days after the order. The applicants have a statutory duty to deliver to the opposite party the papers immediately and, as such, on this ground, the order of injunction has to be vacated. It is stated that the 2nd plaintiff has its regional office at Chennai and the plaintiffs have the exclusive copyright in the Artistic Logo and, as such, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit under Section 62. As per the plaint, the first plaintiff, who is in United Kingdom, is the proprietor of the artistic work and the sole exclusive proprietor of the copyright. He is also the registered proprietor of the trade marks and the 2nd plaintiff who is based in India, is said to be the registered user of these trade marks. The 2nd plaintiff has no legal right in the copyright. It is only the owner of the copyright who can seek remedies under the Act. The 2nd plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit for infringement of copyright. The 2nd plaintiff has no legal right in the copyright. It is only the owner of the copyright who can seek remedies under the Act. The 2nd plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit for infringement of copyright. Admittedly all the defendants reside in Hyderabad and, as such this court has no jurisdiction. The plaintiffs have prayed for combining the cause of action also. Admittedly, the cause of action with respect to infringement of trade mark and passing off is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. The plaintiff has produced document No.8, which is said to be evidence of one litre of CRB Oil having been sold under the first defendant's cash memo. Document No.17 which is said to be the report of the quality control shows that only half a litre roll pack has been subjected to analysis. The first defendant has not sold even a drop of oil or any lubricant in Chennai. There is no territorial jurisdiction to file the suit before this Court and is intended only to harass them. There is no material to connect the activities of the 1st defendant with other defendants. Hence, the 1st defendant filed these applications to reject the plaint and to revoke the order in A.No.37/2000 and also to suspend the order of interim injunction granted in O.As. 4 to 6 of 2000 dated 7.1.2000. 9. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 10. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the applicants/plaintiffs have got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour? (2) Whether there are any valid and sufficient cause to suspend the order of interim injunction granted in O.As. 4 to 6 of 2000 dated 7.1.2000? (3) Whether there are any valid ground to reject the plaint? (4) Whether the order passed in A.No. 37/2000 is liable to be revoked? 11. Points: The first applicant is carrying on business of manufacturing, processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products, anti-freezing compounds, hydraulic fluids brake fluids, etc. in United Kingdom and other countries including India. The 2nd applicant was established on 31.5.1979 with modern machineries to manufacture various lubricants and oils conforming to the International Standard. Their products enjoy great reputation and goodwill all over India. in United Kingdom and other countries including India. The 2nd applicant was established on 31.5.1979 with modern machineries to manufacture various lubricants and oils conforming to the International Standard. Their products enjoy great reputation and goodwill all over India. The first applicant is the registered proprietor of several trade marks, especially trade mark Castrol and a series of marks having Castrol as the prefix. Registered User Agreement dated 26.8.1985 was entered into between the applicants 1 and 2 in respect of the registration numbers. The 2nd applicant is said to be the registered user/licensee of all these products. They are selling automobile oils and lubricants in containers/cartons having a distinctive colour scheme, get up and lay out. The distinctive features are clearly mentioned in extenso in the affidavit itself. The total turnover of the business carried on by the applicant as well as the money spent by them towards advertisement run to crores of rupees. Only recently they came to know that the respondents are selling, distributing and dealing in spurious lubricants oils, greases, etc. They are also packing them in used containers/cartons of the applicants and distributing the same to various customers. They are passing off and enabling others to pass off their substandard goods as that of the applicants. They have copied the applicants' artistic work, packaging, etc. They have also printed the name and address of the 2nd applicant as the manufacturer of the spurious oils. They ought to have printed their names and addresses. They do not have licence issued by the Central Government and they have committed fraud on the trade and public. 12. Learned senior counsel for the applicants contended that the act of the respondents had caused confusion and deception among the trade and public and an ordinary purchaser cannot make out any difference between these two containers/cartons. He further pointed out that the samples purchased from the respondents' premises were also sent to the laboratory for test and the report confirmed that the lubricants oils and greases sold by the respondents are spurious and substandard. The use of this oil is bound to damage the vehicle, hamper the performance of the vehicle and it may lead to road accidents endangering human life. Unless and until order of injunction is granted, the applicants will be put to much loss and hardship. The use of this oil is bound to damage the vehicle, hamper the performance of the vehicle and it may lead to road accidents endangering human life. Unless and until order of injunction is granted, the applicants will be put to much loss and hardship. Moreover, they have got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. 13. There is no dispute that the first applicant is the registered proprietor of the trade mark Castrol, Castrol Logo, Castrol GTX, Castrol CRB, etc. Learned senior counsel for the applicants stated that these trade marks are used in India by the 2nd applicant as registered user/licensee. The first applicant is the owner of the artistic work in Castrol Logo and is the proprietor of the copyright. The 2nd applicant is the exclusive licensee of the copyright, who is authorised to use the same. Under Section 54 of the Copyrights Act, owner of copyright shall include an exclusive licensee. Moreover, under Section 62 of the Copyright Act, a suit for infringement of copyright can be filed where any of the persons instituting the suit carries on business. Learned senior counsel for the applicants relied on Brooke Bond India Limited v. Balaji Tea (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1993 (2) MLJ 132 , wherein it is stated that where the action for infringement of copyright and action for infringement of trade mark and for passing off, arising from same bundle of facts, leave can be granted. 14. Learned senior counsel for the applicants also produced the copy of Exclusive Copyright Licence dated 26.8.1994 given by the first applicant in favour of the 2nd applicant. Perusal of this document clearly indicates that the 2nd applicant happened to be the registered user/licensee and admittedly, the first applicant is the registered trade mark holder. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents first raised an objection that although ad-interim injunction was granted on 7.1.2000, Order 39 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure has not been complied with immediately and on this ground, the injunction already granted is liable to be vacated. Learned senior counsel for the applicants stated that although the order was passed on 7.1.2000, the issue order copy was given only on 10.1.2000 and the copy was made ready and issued only on 11.1.2000. Learned senior counsel for the applicants stated that although the order was passed on 7.1.2000, the issue order copy was given only on 10.1.2000 and the copy was made ready and issued only on 11.1.2000. Notice has been sent to all the respondents concerned on 11.1.2000 and thereafter only, these respondents have filed number of applications. There is absolutely no delay on the part of the applicants in complying with the provisions under Order 39 Rule 3 C.P.C. and hence, I am of the view that there is no force in the contention raised by the respondents. Moreover, learned senior counsel for the applicants also relied on Naba Kishore Das v. Umakanta Mohapatra, 1918 AIR(Orissa) 222, wherein it is observed that ad-interim injunction was passed ex parte in the absence of compliance of the provisions of Rule 3 may have other consequences. Neither the language of the Code nor the spirit of the law warrants an inference that the ad interim order of injunction passed by the Court shall be rendered as non est if the party in whose favour the injunction was made fails to comply with the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. This decision is also applicable to the case on hand. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents further raised objections, stating that neither Section 54 nor Section 62 of the Copyrights Act is applicable to the case of the applicants. The second applicant should necessarily be either the owner of the copyright or the exclusive licensee and in the absence of the same, the suit itself is not maintainable and, as such, the plaint ought to be rejected. The question whether the plaint is liable to be rejected or not is a matter that can be decided only at a later point of time. For the purpose of considering the applications as to whether the applicants have got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in their favour, it is just and necessary to go into the question whether the 2nd applicant is the registered user/licensee of the registered trade mark. When once it is admitted that the registered trade marks are only in the name of the first applicant, the respondents have no right whatsoever to question their right. When once it is admitted that the registered trade marks are only in the name of the first applicant, the respondents have no right whatsoever to question their right. Moreover, it is a dispute between the applicants 1 and 2 and the respondents cannot question the competency or locus standi of the applicants in moving these applications. 17. It is also necessary to state that in some of the products seized from the respondents, the name of the manufacturer has been printed as the 2nd applicant itself. There is no explanation on the part of the respondents in respect of this article. It is quite probable that used containers/cartons belonging to the applicants might have been used by the respondents in selling their goods as that of the applicants to mislead the unwary purchasers. However, learned counsel for the respondents stated that in the typed set of documents, records were filed to show that one litre oil tin had been purchased, but in the analysis report, it is seen that only 1/2 litre roll pack has been submitted to the quality check. By this, one cannot rush to the conclusion as if some grave mistake had occurred. It is clear from the affidavit filed by the applicants that several purchases were made from the defendants and in fact, typed set of documents produced by the applicants themselves established the same. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that much weight cannot be attached to the present contention raised by the respondents in respect of the analysis report. 18. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the applicants cannot file one suit against all the 9 defendants and they are not inter-connected and, as such, the suit is also liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel further stated that all the defendants are residing at Hyderabad and they have not sold any product within the City of Madras and, as such, this Court has no jurisdiction. In support of their contention, they relied upon Amrutanjan Ltd. v. Mehta Unani Pharmacy Company, (1980 Vol.15) wherein it is observed that the defendants sold the pain balm only in the Gujarat States, the alleged sale in the city of Madras could not be regarded as real sale and since there was no real sale under the trade mark Amrutanjan within its territorial jurisdiction, the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. They also relied on Ellora Industries v. Banarasi Dass, wherein it is observed that the purpose of tort of passing off is to protect commercial goodwill, to ensure that people's business reputations are not exploited. They further relied on H.P. Marketing & Processing Corporation v. M.M. Breweries, AIR 1981 Punjab & Haryana 117, that in a suit for passing off or injunction on account of infringement of trade mark, the cause of action partly or wholly can arise in a given jurisdiction only if it is the defendant 19. For the reasons stated above, O.A. 4 to 6 of 2000 are allowed and interim injunction already granted is made absolute. Applications No. 500 to 504 of 2000 are dismissed.