Judgment :- M. Karpagavinayagam, J. 1. The plaintiffs/applicants filed the suit for declaration that the cease and desist notice dated 4.11.1999 sent on behalf of the defendant is a groundless and unjustifiable threat and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from issuing memos, circulars, advertisements, notices threatening action and other consequential reliefs. 2. Pending the above suit, the applicants have filed this application seeking for an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from issuing memos, circulars, advertisements, notices and such like, threatening action, on action of the plaintiffs' business in edible oils using the trademark "OK". 3. The case of the applicants is as follows :- "The applicants are engaged in the trade of marketing sunflower oil and palm oil. They have been engaged in this business since April, 1999 when it took over the business activity from M/s. Sakthi Oil Mart, a proprietary concern owned by Shri R. Natarajan, who is the first applicant. They have been marketing their goods under the trademark "OK" in the case of Double Refined Sunflower Oil and under the trademark "OK's" in the case of Malaysian Palm Oil. The trademark "OK" was earlier being used by M/s. Sakthi Oil Mart with respect to the same two edible oils. Since April, 1999, the applicants alone are using the said "OK" mark. They do not market or deal in any other goods. The applicants have made huge investments. Within a short period they have been able to achieve significant growth in terms of quantity and turnover. The defendant is marketing sunflower oil under the trademark "Flora" and vanaspathi under the trademark "Dalda". No type of edible oil falling under class 29 has ever marketed by the defendant under the brand name "OK". The defendant is using the mark "OK" only with respect to detergent soaps, being goods falling under class 3. While so, the applicants received a lawyer notice dated 4.11.1999 on behalf of the defendant calling upon the applicants to desist forthwith from using in any manner the trademark "OK" in the plaintiffs' products. It is also stated in the notice that in the event of non-compliance, action would be taken against the applicants. While so, the applicants received a lawyer notice dated 4.11.1999 on behalf of the defendant calling upon the applicants to desist forthwith from using in any manner the trademark "OK" in the plaintiffs' products. It is also stated in the notice that in the event of non-compliance, action would be taken against the applicants. On receipt of the notice, the applicants sent a detailed and prompt reply dated 15.11.1999 stating that the plaintiffs/applicants would be entitled to use the said trademark, as the plaintiffs have applied in November 1999 for Legal User Certificate with respect to these marks and obtained the same. On verification from the Trademark Registry, the applicants came to know that the statement made in the threat notice that the defendant is the registered proprietor of the trademark in class No. 29 is incorrect and untrue. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction along with this application for ad-interim injunction." 4. The case of the defendant/respondent is as follows :- " The respondent is a reputed Multi National Company engaged in various products like Clinic Shampoo, Top Star Tea, Pepsodent Toothpaste, Close up Tooth Paste, Hamam Soap, 501 Detergent Cake, Rin, etc. In 1995, the Tata Oil Mills Limited (TOMCO) was amalgamated with the respondent company. Upon such amalgamation, the intellectual property rights and all statutory registrations obtained by TOMCO also stood transferred in favour of the respondent company. As on date, the respondent company is the proprietor of the trademark "OK". The respondent is taking steps to effectuate the legal transfer of trademark Nos. 190506 and 19058 from the Trademark Registry. The trademark "OK" bearing trademark Nos. 190506 and 190508 were registered in TOMCO's name in respect of goods falling under Class 29 (Edible Oil). On coming to know that the applicants had commenced marketing Palm Gold Malaysian Palm Oil and Double Refined Sunflower Oil under the respondent's brand name "OK", the respondent issued a legal notice dated 4.11.1999 calling upon the applicants to forthwith desist from using the trademark "OK". Upon receipt of the legal notice, the applicants issued a reply dated 15.11.1999. While the matter is under consideration, the applicants have rushed to this Court with a frivolous suit along with this application seeking interim injunction. Since the respondent has got right to use the trademark "OK", he would be entitled to issue cease and desist notice to the applicants. While the matter is under consideration, the applicants have rushed to this Court with a frivolous suit along with this application seeking interim injunction. Since the respondent has got right to use the trademark "OK", he would be entitled to issue cease and desist notice to the applicants. Hence, the application has to be dismissed." 5. I heard the counsel Mr. N.A.K. Sarma, appearing for the applicants/plaintiffs and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, appearing for the respondent. 6. It has been specifically stated both in the plaint and in the affidavit filed by the applicants that they have been marketing their goods, namely, sunflower oil and palm oil using the trademark "OK" since April, 1999. Earlier, the same trademark was used by M/s. Sakthi Oil Mart, a proprietary firm with respect to the same two edible oils, which is owned by one R. Natarajan, who is the first applicant. 7. It is also stated that the defendant has been marketing sunflower oil under the trademark "Flora" and vanaspathi under the trademark "Dalda" and the defendant does not manufacture palm oil at all and as such, they are not marketing edible oils and hydrogenerated vegetable oils all over the country under the brand name "OK". No type of edible oil falling under class 29 has ever been marketed by the defendant under the brand name "OK". They have been recently using the mark "OK" only with respect to detergent soaps, which goods falling under class 3 which has no connection with edible oils. 8. It is the further case of the plaintiffs/applicants that the trademark Nos. 190506 and 190508 in class 29 are not standing in the name of the defendant. The defendant has acquired certain business activity of M/s. Tata Oil Mills Limited with respect to detergent soaps and as far as the registered trademark "OK" in class 29 is concerned, proprietorship of the mark has never been vested on the defendant. 9. According to the counsel for the applicants, unless and until the respondent's name is entered as the registered proprietor of the trademark "OK" with respect to goods falling under class 29 in the Trademarks Register in accordance with the Act, 1958, the respondent has no legal or other right to claim exclusive use of the said trademark with respect to those goods. 10. 10. It is also contended that the applicants perused the Trademark Journal and ascertained that till date no entry has been published to the effect that the respondent is the subsequent proprietor of the two mark Nos. 190506 and 190508 in class 29. 11. On the other hand, it is seen from the typed set that the applicants have applied in November 1999 to the Trademarks Registry in Form TM-46 for Legal User Certificate with respect to these two marks and obtained the same. 12. It is the case of the respondent that the trademark "OK" has been registered with Trademarks Registry under class 29 in the name of TOMCO. However, it has not been established that the said trademark has been registered or transferred in the name of the respondent. 13. In fact, the statement made by the applicants in their affidavit that till date no entry has been published in the Trademarks Journal to the effect that the defendant is the subsequent proprietor of the two mark numbers in class 29 as claimed in the notice dated 4.11.1999 has not been denied. Moreover, the contents of the notice dated 4.11.1999 and the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent would also reflect some variation in the stand taken by the respondent. 14. Section 120 of the Trademarks Act permits a suit being filed for a declaration that the threats are unjustifiable. In addition an injunction may also be sought for against the continuance of the threats. Once the Court is satisfied that of the goods of a trader is not necessarily restricted only to the people of the country where such goods are freely available but the knowledge and awareness of the same reaches even the shores of those countries where the goods have not been. When a product is launched and hits the market in one country, the cognizance of the same is also taken by the people in other countries almost at the same time by getting acquainted with it through advertisements in newspapers, magazines, television, video films, cinemas etc. even though there may not be availability of the product in those countries because of import restrictions or other factors. In today's world it cannot be said that a product and the trade mark under which it is sold abroad, does not have a reputation or goodwill in countries where it is not available. even though there may not be availability of the product in those countries because of import restrictions or other factors. In today's world it cannot be said that a product and the trade mark under which it is sold abroad, does not have a reputation or goodwill in countries where it is not available. The knowledge and awareness of it and its critical evaluation and appraisal travels beyond the confines of the geographical area in which it is sold. This has been made possible by development of communication systems, which transmit and disseminate the information as soon as it is sent from one place to another. Satellite Television is a major contributor of the information explotion. Dissemination of knowledge of a trade mark in respect of a product through advertisement in media amounts to use of the trade mark whether or not the advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in the market." In the above case, the Calcutta High Court also cited a similar view taken by the Division Bench in the case of J.N. Nichols (Vimto) Ltd. v. Rose and Thistle, 1994 at the threats are irresponsible and unjustified, then the Court would definitely come to the rescue of the aggrieved to grant injunction. 15. In view of the above fact situation, I am of the opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for granting interim injunction. Accordingly, interim injunction is granted pending disposal of the suit. 16. In the result, the application is allowed.