Short Note This miscellaneous appeal is directed against order dated 17th January, 1995 in Civil Suit No. 65-A/1994 whereby application of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, CPC for grant of temporary injunction was allowed. The plaintiff is the manufacturer of "Badshaji Farmash Special Bidi No. 345". It sells bidis in Kattas and Pudas carrying distinct labels. The plaintiff firm has got its trade mark registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The appellants-defendants also are manufacturers of bidis. They started selling their bidis under the trade name 'Pooran Farmaish Special Bidi No. 645'. The plaintiff brought a suit for permanent injunction and recovery of damages alongwith an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from selling their bidis under the label, which they alleged was deceptively similar to the label used by the plaintiff/respondent, in violation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. The learned lower Court, after comparing the labels, wrappers, etc. of the bidis sold by the plaintiff-respondent under its registered trade mark found that the same has been copied by the defendants-appellants. Accordingly, the application of the plaintiff-respondent for temporary injunction was allowed and the appellants-defendants were restrained from selling the bidis under the labels and wrappers which were, prima fade. held to be deceptively similar to those used by the plaintiff-respondent. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the labels and wrappers, etc. being used by the appellants for selling their bidis are not deceptively similar and there are striking differences between the two. It has been submitted that the appellant's bidis are better in taste and flavour than those sold by the respondent-plaintiff, Hence, they could not have any advantage in selling the bidis under the labels similar to those being used by the plaintiff-respondent. It may be noted that in such a matter, the approach of the Court cannot be to put the two labels in juxtaposition with each other and compare them to find out disparity between the two, The correct approach should be to find out as to whether the two labels. Wrappers, etc. are deceptively similar and are likely to mislead and misguide an unwary customer to purchase the same in the belief that he is the purchaser of the article of the registered trade mark user. Wrappers, etc. are deceptively similar and are likely to mislead and misguide an unwary customer to purchase the same in the belief that he is the purchaser of the article of the registered trade mark user. On comparison of the two labels used by the appellants and those used by the respondent, it appears that they appear deceptively similar in colour scheme, design and get-up. The article sold by both the parties is the same, i.e., bidis. They operate in the same area. The plaintiff-respondent has got its trade mark registered. Therefore, it appears that the defendant-appellant is not entitled to sell the bid is under labels which are deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff-respondent. The impugned order granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff-respondent and restraining the appellants from using the labels, wrappers, etc, appears to be wholly justified. No interference in the said order is called for. The appeal has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. The appellants shall bear their own costs and shall pay that of the respondent, which is quantified at Rs. 3.000/-.