S. K. AGARWAL J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs (plaintiff nos. 1 and 2) have filed the suit for permanent injunction for infringement of trademark, copy right, passing off and rendition of accounts, and delivery up etc. against the defendants. ( 2 ) IT is pleading that plaintiff no. 1, M/s Castrol limited is a company incorporated under the laws of England and having its registered office in U. K Plaintiff no. 2 M/s Castrol India ltd. is a company registered under the Indian companies Act, 1956, having registered office at Mumbai and regional office at New Delhi. They are carrying on the business of manufacturing, processing and marking of high grade lubricating oil products. Plaintiff no. 1 is the registered proprietor of the trademark Castrol under various categories detailed in para 8 of the plaint. The packing material used by plaintiff has distingive colour scheme, get up, layout and artistic features, and they are owners of the copyright of the artistic works, and have legal and equitable rights to reproduce, publish and distribute any such packing material, as per Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. ( 3 ) IT is pleaded that plaintiffs are extensively advertising their products through various print media, namely, newspapers, magazines, trade journals, leaflets and other promotional literature, depicting the said trademarks. The expenses occurred by plaintiff no. 2 in India on advertising and publicity of the product during the last ten years is stated to be around 42 crores 87 lakhs. It is pleaded that in the month of June 1999. it came to the notice of plaintiffs, through their authorised distributor at Jodhpur, Rajasthan that defendants 1,2. 5 and 6 were raided by the police, and cases vide FIR nos. 90/1999, 263/99 and 209/99 were registered against them, for filling and marketing spurious oil. bearing plaintiffs trademarks CASTROL, castrol CRB. CASTROL GTX of the plaintiffs. There are similar allegations against defendants 3 and 4. Copies of seizure memos have been filed. The enquires revealed that defendants were purchasing infringing labels from M/s dimple Printers, Delhi. It is pleaded that Is defendant s adoption and use of the plaintiff trademark, Is fraudulent and accutated with a malafide intention to pass off the lubricants (filled in spurious containers) as genuine and make illegal profits and causing Injury to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) ON 24. 2. It is pleaded that Is defendant s adoption and use of the plaintiff trademark, Is fraudulent and accutated with a malafide intention to pass off the lubricants (filled in spurious containers) as genuine and make illegal profits and causing Injury to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. ( 4 ) ON 24. 2. 2000, ad-interim injunction in terms of the prayers made in the plaint was granted. The defendants were duly served. The defendants 1 and 5 even filed a short reply, thereafter they did not appeared and were proceeded ex-parte on 13. 12. 2000. Plaintiff was directed to file affidavit by way of evidence in support of their claims. The same was filed and have remain un-rebutted. In the meanwhile, on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the suit was transferred to the District Court for trial. The plaintiff moved an application and vide order dated 13. 9. 2004, the jurisdictional value of the suit, was enhanced from Rs. 10,00,600/- to Rs. 20,00,600/ -. The amended plaint was taken on record and the suit came back for trial. ( 5 ) THE defendants were proceeded ex parte on 13. 12. 2000 and evidence by way of affidavits, filed by the plaintiffs has gone un rebutted; thus the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has given up the prayers for rendition of accounts and delivery of offending infringing containers, blocks, dies, seals, pilfer proof packing, packing material etc. for destruction. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the suit is decreed. The defendants their partners or proprietors, their servants, agents, stockiest aie restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for salt: , advertising directly and indirectly dealing in Multi grade engine oil: lubricants and gear oil or any other cognate and allied goods, under the plaintiffs trade nark CASTROL. CASTROL CRB PLUS. CASTROL GTX EXTRA. CASTROL CRD etc. or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs trademarks. ( 7 ) THE defendants are further restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly and indirectly dealing in multi grade engine oil. Lubricants, gear oil. CASTROL CRB PLUS. CASTROL GTX EXTRA. CASTROL CRD etc. or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs trademarks. ( 7 ) THE defendants are further restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly and indirectly dealing in multi grade engine oil. Lubricants, gear oil. brake oil, greases or any other cognate and allied goods, packed in pilfer proof packing bearing the marks CASTROL, CASTROL CRB plus, CASTROL GTX EXTRA and CASTROL crd which is a reproduction having similar get up layout as that of the plaintiffs which is likely to lead to passing off and infringement of plaintiffs copy rights. The defendants further held liable to pay Rs. 10,000 /- as costs. ( 8 ) THE decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All other pending IAs also stand disposed of. .