Judgment :- A. Ramamurthi, J. 1. These applications are filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from committing act of infringement of trade mark, infringement of copyright and passing off pending disposal of the suit. 2. The case in brief for disposal of all the applications is as follows : The applicant is a Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act. The applicant is a member of Murugappa Group of Companies and they have several companies incorporated who are manufacturing and trading in a wide variety of goods including sanitaryware, pesticides, insecticides, fertilizers, sugar, confectionery, tea, bicycles and abrasives. EID Parry India Limited has several divisions one of which is the PARRYWARE division, which is the ceramics division involved in the manufacture and sale of various types of sanitaryware. The applicant's sanitaryware are sold and advertised all over India. They were sold by the applicant under the trademark PARRYWARE. The design on the high quality of applicant's products are considered by the trade and public as futuristic range of sanitaryware. The applicant has acquired its technology from several leading sanitaryware companies all over the world to manufacture high quality luxurious glamour sanitaryware and fittings. The applicant is a registered proprietor of the trademark PARRYWARE CASCADE and the registration has been duly renewed and is still in force. The applicant is also the proprietor of the trademark PARRYS in respect of Vitreous China, Lion Closets, Wash Basins, etc. and it was registered and the same is still in force. The applicant is the owner of the copyright in the artistic works PARRYWARE and PARRYS written in stylized script. The artistic works were created by its employees in the course of employment. The sales figures of the applicant's sanitaryware sold under the trade marks are also furnished in para 7 of the affidavit for the period from 1995 to 2000. They have also advertised the sanitaryware product and the advertisement and sales promotion expenses incurred by them are also separately furnished in para 8 of the affidavit. By virtue of long, extensive use, their trade mark enjoyed great reputation and goodwill all over India. 3. During the month of September 2000, the applicant became aware that the respondents are manufacturing and selling sanitaryware product bearing applicant's trade mark PARRYWARE and similar marks. By virtue of long, extensive use, their trade mark enjoyed great reputation and goodwill all over India. 3. During the month of September 2000, the applicant became aware that the respondents are manufacturing and selling sanitaryware product bearing applicant's trade mark PARRYWARE and similar marks. The respondents are selling their sanitaryware bearing the applicant's artistic work PARRYS and they are also selling sanitaryware bearing similar trademark such as PARRIWARE, PARIS, etc. The script used in respect of similar trade marks are identical to the applicant's artistic works. The respondents are selling inferior quality spurious sanitaryware bearing applicant's trade mark and artistic work. Both the products are sold in the same shop over the same counter and to the same class of purchasers. It is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and public. An ordinary person buys the respondent's sanitaryware bearing the applicant's trademark and the respondents are also passing off their goods as that of the applicant. The applicant had received several complaints from the consumers who have purchased the respondent's sanitaryware under the impression that they are manufactured by the applicant. An ordinary purchaser cannot make out the difference between these two products. The applicant's sales have been affected very much by the wrongful activities of the respondents. The 5th respondent is the manufacturer of the spurious PARRYWARE, PARRYS sanitaryware products and deceptively similar products. The first respondent is the wholesale distributor and the business activities are carried on at the address of respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 4 are also distributors of these spurious sanitaryware products manufactured by the 5th respondent. The applicant carried out an investigation, which revealed that the 5th respondent has two godowns, show room and 10 employees where the substandard items are manufactured and stocked. The respondents are selling their products at a very low price and unless an order of interim injunction is granted, the applicants will be put to much loss and hardship. 4. The 5th respondent filed a common counter affidavit and denied the various averments. They deal in sanitaryware, but they did not manufacture them. They buy the same from well known manufacturers all over India including the plaintiff since 1994. There cannot be any passing off or action in deceit within the jurisdiction of this court. The author's name relating to the artistic work is not known. They deal in sanitaryware, but they did not manufacture them. They buy the same from well known manufacturers all over India including the plaintiff since 1994. There cannot be any passing off or action in deceit within the jurisdiction of this court. The author's name relating to the artistic work is not known. Under the Copyright Act, in the case of literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, which is published anonymously or pseudonymously copyright shall subsist until 50 years from the beginning the calender year next following the year in which the work is first published. The period of protection under the Act also expired in 1990 and as such, the suit cannot be filed on the basis of the copyright. 5. Document No. 1 is said to be a copy of the certificate of registration of trademark and it is a truncated document and the contents on the reverse of the original document have not been produced. Document No. 2 also suffers from the same fatal legal defect and is inadmissible in evidence in a court of Law. Document No. 3 is a printed letter from the Registry stating that the registration of the trade mark has been renewed for a period of 7 years and it also expired two months ago on 18.9.2000. There cannot be any cause of action for infringement of the registered trade mark also. The Commissioner appointed by the Court also visited the premises along with a group. Only his aged father was present and on hearing the news of filing the suit, demand for damages of Rs. 10 lakhs, taking the inventory and seizure of the articles and account books in the shop created a mental shock to his aged father and died two days later on 16.11.2000. Hence, the applications are liable to be dismissed. 6. The applicant filed reply affidavit and denied the various averments made in the counter affidavit. The registration of trademark PARRYS and PARRYWARE in the name of the applicant do not suffer from any infirmity. They have been duly registered and renewed and they are still valid and subsisting. Under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in respect of copyright infringement. The registration of trademark PARRYS and PARRYWARE in the name of the applicant do not suffer from any infirmity. They have been duly registered and renewed and they are still valid and subsisting. Under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, this court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in respect of copyright infringement. The plaintiff has its registered office at Madras and the defendants are located in the suburbs of Madras and are selling their products in the City of Chennai within the jurisdiction of this court. The invoices seized by the Advocate Commissioner in the course of inspection revealed supply of goods bearing identical trade mark to various retail dealers in the City of Chennai. In order to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings, the application for combinding the causes of action has been filed under clause 14 of the Letters Patent Act read with Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side rules. 7. Heard the learned counsel of both sides. 8. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether the applicant has got prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in its favour ? (2) To what relief ? 9. Points : There is no dispute that the applicants are the registered proprietor of the trademark PARRYWARE CASCADE and also PARRYS and dealing in sanitaryware products for a very long time. The applicant is the owner of the copyright in the artistic works PARRYWARE and PARRYS written in stylised script. Learned counsel for the applicant stated that the registration was made in accordance with law and it was periodically renewed and is still in force. The sales figures of the applicant's sanitaryware and also the advertisement and sales promotion expenses are also furnished by the applicant. During September 2000, the applicant came to know that the respondents are also manufacturing and selling sanitaryware products bearing applicant's trademark and also using the artistic work and selling spurious inferior quality sanitaryware products. He further stated that both the products are sold in the same shop over the same counter and to the same class of purchasers. In short, it is stated that an unwary purchaser may not be able to distinct the product of one and there is every possibility that due to deception or similarity in the goods, the respondents are passing off their goods as that of the applicant. In short, it is stated that an unwary purchaser may not be able to distinct the product of one and there is every possibility that due to deception or similarity in the goods, the respondents are passing off their goods as that of the applicant. An unwary purchaser cannot make out the difference between these two products and as a result of which, the sales turnover of the applicant also will come down. The 5th respondent is the manufacturer of these spurious sanitaryware products under the said trademark and using the same copyright to deceive the public. These spurious products are sold in the shops of the other defendants. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the 5th respondent contended that there is no cause of action for the applicant to file the suit and claim any interim relief. The 5th respondent is not the manufacturer of the products, but they are dealing with the product and purchasing the same from various persons including the applicant also. The applicants have not stated who invented the copyright and in the absence of any particulars, it would be valid only for a period of 50 years and it has also come to an end. The documents filed on the side of the applicant are only truncated documents and they will not clothe with any right on the applicants. Moreover, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit also. 11. The applicant has filed typed set of documents to show the registration of the trademark as well as the artistic work of the trademark and other details. They have also produced the photographs of the products of the applicant as well as the respondents. The respondents are selling the products bearing the identical name and there is every possibility of misleading the innocent public also. No doubt, learned Senior Counsel for the 5th respondent contended that the 5th respondent is not the manufacturer, but only a dealer in these products. However, they have not filed any document to show from where they have acquired these sanitaryware products bearing the identical name and the artistic work of the applicants. 12. A Commissioner was also appointed by the Court and he has also inspected the place of the respondents. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner clearly gives out the details of the products dealt with by the respondents. 12. A Commissioner was also appointed by the Court and he has also inspected the place of the respondents. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner clearly gives out the details of the products dealt with by the respondents. The particulars of the inventory are also incorporated in the report. Annexure A gives detailed information about the items found in the 5th respondent premises. The products found there are Closets, and Wash Basins bearing the name Paris, Pary's, Parryware and Harryware. They are in different colours and 185 Parry Closets, 5 Parryware Washbasins, and 7 Parryware Western Closets were also available in the shop. Annexure B contains list of items seized on 14.11.2000. The detailed information about the items found in the premises of the 4th respondent are also given separately. About 800 Nos. of Prriyaware Closets, 150 Nos. of Paraware Closets, 30 Nos. of Parry's closets, 10 Nos. of Parry's Washbasins, 300 Nos. of Washbasins big and 220 Nos. of Washbasins small were also found. Similarly in godown No. 2 also, large number of articles have been noticed by the Commissioner. In view of the aforesaid materials available, it is prima facie established that the respondents are selling identical products which are deceptively similar to the applicant's trademark with artistic work. Under the circumstance, I am of the view that the applicant company has established that they have got a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. 13. Learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent contended that some of the documents filed by the applicant are truncated and back portion of the same has not source. 24. In the light of the above provisions and various authorities referred to above, if we look at the present facts of the case, in my considered opinion that there is a prima fa been filed. The question whether the entire document copy has been filed or not is immaterial now. These documents have been filed by the applicant in order to show that their trade mark was registered and the artistic work was also registered under the Copyright Act. The fact that the applicant has got a registered trade-mark containing several names and the artistic work was registered under the Copyright Act has not been seriously disputed by the respondent. These documents have been filed by the applicant in order to show that their trade mark was registered and the artistic work was also registered under the Copyright Act. The fact that the applicant has got a registered trade-mark containing several names and the artistic work was registered under the Copyright Act has not been seriously disputed by the respondent. Even in the reply affidavit filed by the applicant, it is stated under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, this court has got jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in respect of copyright infringement. The copyright in respect of an anonymous work under Section 23 of the Act subsists for the period of 60 years and if that is taken into consideration, there is no force in the contention of the respondents. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents are dealing in the sanitaryware products and they used the identical trade mark which are deceptively similar to that of the applicant and the artistic work also has been copied. Apart from that, the Advocate Commissioner had also seized certain invoices which clearly disclose that they have transacted within the jurisdiction of this court. In the light of the material given by the applicant and also the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner, it is just and necessary to restrain the respondents to prevent their infringement of the trade mark, copyright of the applicant and also to prevent passing off the goods of the respondents as that of the applicant. Hence, these points are answered accordingly. 14. For the reasons stated above, all the applications are allowed and the interim order granted on 9.11.2000 is made absolute.