Judgment ( 1. ) BY impugned order XIIth A. D. J. , Indore in his M. J. C. No. 19/1999 (Pizza Hut International LLe v. Rakesh Sariya and Anr.) has ordered that appellant be put to civil jail for one month and the restaurant run by her in name and Logo "pizza Ghar" be attached under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code for short) for disobedience or breach of an ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 1-A/1999 (Pizza Hut and 2 Ors. v. Kakesh Sariya and Ors.) on 22/03/1999 vide Annexure P/2, later confirmed by XIIth A. D. J. , Indore on 22/09/1999 vide Annexure P/3 whereby Smt. Kiran Gupta (the appellant) and Mr. Rakesh Sariya (R-4) were restrained to use trade name and logo of "pizza Hut". ( 2. ) THE respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction and accounts. They had claimed that they are registered proprietors of trade name "pizza Hut" and its logo. They claimed themselves to be an International Corporation having their business in different countries under the trade name and logo of "pizza Hut". They claimed that some persons including Mr. Rakesh Sariya (R-4) had started a business in the name of Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd. There had been a long drawn litigation between respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the persons having business name of Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd. which had ended in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on compromise and respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 were admitted to be the full proprietors of the trade name "pizza Hut" and its logo. Appellant had started working under the trade name and logo of "pizza Hut", as a franchisee of Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd. which was acquired by her after paying Rs. 61,000/- as a license fee. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had obtained an ad-interim injunction which was later confirmed by the Court. ( 3. ) NOTICE of ad-interim injunction alongwith copy of order was served on the appellant on 23/03/1999. Despite such notice appellant continued to use the trade name and logo of "pizza Hut". When these respondents Nos. 61,000/- as a license fee. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had obtained an ad-interim injunction which was later confirmed by the Court. ( 3. ) NOTICE of ad-interim injunction alongwith copy of order was served on the appellant on 23/03/1999. Despite such notice appellant continued to use the trade name and logo of "pizza Hut". When these respondents Nos. 1 to 3 drew attention of the trial Court of such violation of the ad-interim injunction, the advocate of the appellant undertook and assured the Court that necessary steps would be taken to comply with the order by change of name in stationery and sign boards etc. However, the appellant adopted the name "pizza Ghar" which is nothing but a linguistic Hindi equivalent of trade name "pizza Hut" and continued her business in deceptively similar trade name and logo. ( 4. ) THE appellant denied the allegation. According to her no undertaking was given by her advocate to the Court. On her part she had carried on her own business without any name for about a week after knowledge of the ad-interim injunction. Thereafter she has changed her trade name to "pizza Ghar" from "pizza Hut". The word "ghar" is not Hindi equivalent of English word "hut". Below the name of "pizza Ghar" fast food is written on her sign board. Colours used in the sign board arc also quite different from the logo of the "pizza Hut". There is no similarity between logo of "pizza Ghar" and the "pizza Hut". Appellant is selling not only Pizzas but Pav Bhaji, Chhole Bhature, Chinese and other food articles the same being of indigenous flavour and had made it clear in her sign board also. She is vehement that the trade name of "pizza Ghar" and logo used by her is not deceptively similar to trade name and logo of "pizza Hut". No customer can be ever confused by such trade name that the appellant is serving the food articles under trade name of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3. ( 5. ) AFTER hearing both the parties, the learned A. D. J. was not satisfied with the explanation of the appellant and has punished her for disobedience or breach of injunction. ( 6. ) LEARNED District Judge had restrained the appellant from using trade name or logo of "pizza Hut". The appellant has changed her trade name from "pizza Hut" to "pizza Ghar". ( 6. ) LEARNED District Judge had restrained the appellant from using trade name or logo of "pizza Hut". The appellant has changed her trade name from "pizza Hut" to "pizza Ghar". However, the word "ghar" is written inside the emblem of a small house or hut. The word "pizza Ghar" is surrounded by an oval circle and the word fast food is written below. In such oval circle yellow background is used. Word "pizza" is written in red in yellow background. "hut" is drawn in red colour in which word "ghar" is written in yellow colour. Word fast food is written below such yellow oval shaped circle in red colour on white background. On the other hand registered trade name of respondents No. 1 to 3 "pizza Hut" is written below a hat like emblem, if the impugned trade mark and logo is kept side by side of the registered trade mark and logo of respondents No. 1 to 3. The difference is obvious to every on looker. No minute vigilance is necessary to visualize such a difference. Certainly, any customer who has himself ever seen any restaurant with registered trade name of "pizza Hut" and its logo cannot be deceived and "pizza Ghar" of the appellant cannot pass off for "pizza Hut" of the respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have examined Ajay Bansal (AW-1), a Senior Manager and power of attorney holder for "pizza Hut". He has deposed that ordinarily customer can be mislead by the resemblance in the name. He admits that there is no restaurant run in the trade name of "pizza Hut" within the city of Indore as a franchisee or licensee of the respondents No. 1 to 3. On the other hand Smt. Kiran Gupta (NAW-1) and her husband Vedprakash Gupta (NAW-2) has deposed about dissimilarities between their changed trade name "pizza Ghar" and its logo with the registered trade name and logo of "pizza Hut" of respondents No. 1 to 3. It is note worthy that none of the parties has examined any of the customers or citizens of Indore to prove that he ever entered the "pizza Ghar" of the appellant taking it to be "pizza Hut" of respondents No. 1 to 3. ( 7. ) THE appellant has vehemently relied upon Roche and Co. v. G. Manners and Co. It is note worthy that none of the parties has examined any of the customers or citizens of Indore to prove that he ever entered the "pizza Ghar" of the appellant taking it to be "pizza Hut" of respondents No. 1 to 3. ( 7. ) THE appellant has vehemently relied upon Roche and Co. v. G. Manners and Co. , AIR 1970 SC 2062 wherein test of totality of the trade mark and its likelihood to cause deception or conclusion or mistake in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark has been adopted. Trade marks dropovit and protovit were held not to be deceptively similar. He has claimed that being written in different ink and style trade name "pizza Ghar" is not deceptive for the customers J. R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, 1994 (II) M. P. W. N. 192 : 1994 (14) PTC 260 wherein trade name M/s. Micronix India was compared with M/s. Microtelmatix and M/s. Microtcl. He has claimed that as the case was in Super Candles v. Mahabir Candle Works, AIR 1997 Gauhati 57, the Court should have compared both the trade names and tentative finding as to existence of general similarity in which may in all probability deceive any unwary purchaser. It was a case relating to candles. One of the mark was prize fighter while other was a rocket. No phonetic similarity between two was found. No question of confusion being caused in the mind of purchaser was held to arise. He has argued that word "pizza" is a genetic word for a variety of fast food. No manufacturer can held exclusive right to use the word. He argues that word "ghar" is neither similar nor equivalent to word "hut" relying upon Bharat Enterprises (India) v. C. Lall Gopi Industrial Enterprise, AIR 1999 Punjab and Haryana 231 : 1999 PTC (19) 598. He has argued that unless the respondents No. 1 to 3 are able to prove wilful disobedience of the injunction order, the appellant could not be convicted. According to him order of District Judge had been ambiguous and capable of two interpretations and the appellant had bona fide acted on her own interpretation of the order and thus could not be guilty of wilful disobedience. State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 (5 Judge Bench ). ( 8. According to him order of District Judge had been ambiguous and capable of two interpretations and the appellant had bona fide acted on her own interpretation of the order and thus could not be guilty of wilful disobedience. State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 (5 Judge Bench ). ( 8. ) IT is note worthy that earlier trade name of "pizza Hut" was being used by the appellant. District Judge had granted ad-interim injunction against use of such trade name and logo which according to him had been deceptively similar to the trade name of "pizza Hut" of the respondents No. 1 to 3. The word "ghar" may not be exact Hindi equivalent or translation of word "hut" in English but the word "ghar" as is written inside a small house or hut has been equivalent or translation of "hut". Ann unwary, customer can take such "ghar" to be equivalent to "hut" unless he is a minute observer or had been a visitor to the restaurant under trade name of "pizza Hut" of respondents No. 1 to 3. Quote of J. C. Eno Ltd. v. Vishnu Chemical Company, AIR 1941 Bombay 3 in which "falaxar" was held to be Marathi equivalent of the word "fruit Salt", T. G. Balaji Chettiar v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. , AIR 1967 Madras 148 in which "suryan" was held to be Tamil equivalent of Sun. Amarsingh Chawla v. Rajdhani Roller Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. , 1990 PTC 220 in which "red Fort" was held to be deceptively similar to "lal Quila", Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Pioneer Soap Factory, 1983 PTC 211 where the "suraj" was held to be equivalent in English to the mark "sun", Surya Roshini Ltd. v. Electronic Sound Components, 1994 PTC 244 where adoption of trade mark "bhaskar" in respect of fluorescent was held to be deceptively similar to the mark of "surya". , Bhatia Plastic v. Peacock Industries, 1995 PTC 150 where trade mark "peacock" was held to be deceptively similarly to trade mark "mayur", Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. v. Gillette U. K. Ltd. , 1998 PTC (18) (DB) were "7 Baje" was held to be a Hindi version of "7 Oclock", Beni Prasad Agarwal v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. , AIR 1958 MP 358 where the word "swan White was held to be deceptively similar of "sunlight" has been appropriate and apposite. Certainly, change to Hindi word "ghar" placed inside a "hut" might cause deception to a unwary customer. It is well settled that the true test whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two have to be considered. Putting them side by side to find out the similarities with them would not be enough as held in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. and Co. Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359 : PTC (Suppl) (1) 346. The test of over all similarity likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him is held to be sufficient. Similarly in Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Company, AIR 1970 SC 1649 : PTC (Suppl) (1) 175 "ruston" and "rustom India" were held to be deceptively similar, National Sewing Thread Company Ltd. v. James Chadwick, AIR 1953 SC 357 : PTC (Suppl) (1) 475 were camouflaging an eagle into a vulture by calling it as such likely to cause confusion was held sufficient. ( 9. ) IT is note worthy that in Pizza Hut International Lie v. Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd. , 2003 (26) PTC 208 (Bombay), respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were held to be proprietors of trade name having trans-boarder reputation and adoption of such name of "pizza Hut" by Pizza Hut India Pvt. Ltd. was held to be objectionable and an injunction was granted to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 against the use of trade name "pizza Hut", pertainly, the same was purport of the ad-interim injunction granted by the District Judge. It is note worthy that correctness or the validity of the ad-interim by written granted by District Judge cannot be questioned in the present appeal. Here the main question is whether despite knowledge of ad-interim injunction granted by District Judge the appellant had flouted or intentionally disobeyed or infringed in continuing her business in changed name of "pizza Ghar" which is merely a Hindi equivalent or translation of word "pizza Hut" while retaining thesame logo or colour scheme etc. against use of which ad-interim injunction was granted by the District Judge. On over all appraisal of the material placed on record. I am of the opinion that the appellant has not followed the order of District Judge in its pith and substance or for all intent and purposes. against use of which ad-interim injunction was granted by the District Judge. On over all appraisal of the material placed on record. I am of the opinion that the appellant has not followed the order of District Judge in its pith and substance or for all intent and purposes. However, it is note worthy that so far there has been no restaurant of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under trade name of "pizza Hut" within the city of Indore, thus, no appreciable loss of custom has been established so far. Thus, sentence passed by the Court below of one months civil jail to the appellant is set-aside. However, attachment shall continue till the appellant changes her trade name from "pizza Ghar" to something else, which is not deceptively similar to the trade name of "pizza Hut". In case appellant changes her trade name in accordance with these directions and reports to the trial Court within a month and the attachment shall come to an end and security furnished by her would not be forfeited. The appeal is allowed in part.