Judgment :- Common Judgment: (P. Sathasivam, J.) Aggrieved by the common order dated 08.02.2005, vacating the interim injunction granted earlier, applicant therein filed the above appeals. 2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed before the learned single Judge. 3. The brief facts which are required for the purpose of disposal of the appeals are stated hereunder: (a) The petitioner has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark / name "JOLEN" as part of Company name / trading style, website address, E-mail ID, from using the trade dress, viz., bluish green carton with white lettering as well as the distinctive shaped container and from coming out with any advertisements, announcements or making any publicity to the effect that JOLEN has been changed or renamed as OLINA. (b) According to the petitioner, it carries on an established business as manufacturer of a wide range of cosmetic products, including inter alia, crème bleach to pale hair and marketing those products under the distinctive trademark JOLEN since the year 1955. The trademark JOLEN is an invented word, coined from the names of founders of the petitioner Company JOHN and EVELYN. The petitioner's trademark JOLEN is registered in respect of hair bleaches, crème bleach, skin creams and lotions, astringents, toilet waters, colognes, perfumes etc., in the United State of America as far back as in the year 1969 and in several other countries all over the world. The international sales figures of petitioner's JOLEN crème bleach run into several million dollars. The petitioner's JOLEN crème bleach is advertised extensively through various media, including inter alia, television, radio, newspapers and magazines and substantial sums are incurred towards sales promotion. India is a member of Paris Convention. Under Article 6 Bis of the Paris Convention an internationally well reputed Trademark ought to be protected in India. Section 11 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 also gives protection. The petitioner is presently selling its cosmetic products bearing the trademark JOLEN in India through its exclusive licensee from 3rd November, 2004. (c) The petitioner had applied for registration of trademark JOLEN on 9th January, 1990 in respect of "hair bleach, skin cream and lotions, astringents, toilet waters, etc., and the same was refused by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi on the opposition filed by the second respondent and another. (c) The petitioner had applied for registration of trademark JOLEN on 9th January, 1990 in respect of "hair bleach, skin cream and lotions, astringents, toilet waters, etc., and the same was refused by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi on the opposition filed by the second respondent and another. The petitioner's appeal in T.A.No.151 of 2003 was dismissed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by its order dated 12.01.2005 and the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.1210 of 2005 on the file of the Delhi High Court challenging the order of IPAB and the same is pending. (d) In the month of September, 2004, the petitioner became aware that the respondents have adopted a new trademark OLINA for crème bleach consequent to the injunction order granted in the earlier proceedings. The respondents have imprinted the words "From the House of JOLEN International Ltd.," on the top portion of OLINA carton and "marketed by JOLEN International Ltd." on the right side of the carton giving more prominence to the trade mark JOLEN in bold capital letters. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the respondents have changed the trademark as OLINA, they are using the mark/name JOLEN, the trading style, web site, E-mail ID by giving more prominence to the mark JOLEN on the OLINA carton and they have also retained all other essential features such as bluish green colour scheme, arrangement, identical container and they are also making announcement and advertisement to the effect that JOLEN has been changed or renamed as OLINA. The defence of the respondents is JOLEN and OLINA are completely different. It is also their defence that the present suit is barred under Order II Rule 2, CPC. (e) The trial Court granted ex parte injunction in O.A.Nos.878 to 880 of 2004 on 20.10.2004, which was in operation till the passing of impugned order dated 08.02.2005. The trial Court, without deciding the case on merits, summarily disposed of the original applications by passing the impugned order, directing the respondents to diminish the size of the expression "JOLEN INTERNATIONAL LTD.," and to remove the words "from the house of" on the OLINA carton in all the advertisements, circulars and in other promotional literature including the materials made available in web sites. The trial Court also directed the respondents to furnish bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in favour of the Registrar General on or before 8th March, 2005. Questioning the said order, the petitioner has filed the above appeals. 4. Heard Mr. T.R. Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 5. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the petitioner / appellant has made out a prima facie case for continuance of the order of injunction and whether the learned Judge is justified in vacating the same by the impugned order dated 08.02.2005? 6. Considering the limited issue, there is no need to refer to all the factual matrix as arrayed in the affidavit and counter affidavit filed by both parties. Though the petitioner/appellant claims that it is the proprietor of the trademark JOLEN, the same has been vehemently denied by the respondents. It is to be noted that the trademark JOLEN is registered in India in the name of second respondent and the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. It is also brought to our notice that the request for registration in the name of the petitioner in India has been refused and the appeal filed against the said order has also been dismissed by IPAB. No doubt, it is the claim of the petitioner that it has filed a writ petition against the said order and the same is pending in the Delhi High Court. It is also the specific case of the respondents that JOLEN is not an invented trademark or a coined word as alleged. As said earlier, it is their specific case that the trademark JOLEN is registered in the name of second respondent in India under the Copy Rights Act, 1957. 7. As rightly pointed out, though the petitioner alleges that use of the trademark JOLEN International Ltd. by the respondents would cause confusion, the fact remains that the petitioner did not raise such a ground when it filed the previous suit in 2000 and in such a circumstance, the argument of the respondents that by its own act of omission and commission, the petitioner/plaintiff is barred by law from claiming interim order at its own convenience and that too, as a matter of right cannot be brushed aside. 8. 8. It is also the categorical claim of the respondents that the Division Bench order never restrained them from using the corporate name JOLEN International Ltd., domain name, web site, e-mail ID and they could not have been restrained in the absence of a specific prayer to that effect by the petitioner. Further, as held by the learned single Judge, the verification of the product of the respondents shows that the trademark OLINA is found so prominent and distinct on the carton and there is no scope for any confusion or deception by the use of corporate name JOLEN International Ltd. by the respondents. It is needless to mention again that the trademark JOLEN stands in the name of second respondent and the petitioner's application for registration of trademark JOLEN was refused and there is a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has not proved any trans-border reputation. 9. Mr. Arvind P. Datar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents by taking us through the relevant provisions under the Companies Act, 1956; Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976; Cosmetics Act, 1940; Packing Commodities Act as well as the Rules framed under the relevant enactments, would contend that the name JOLEN was approved by the Registrar of Companies and other statutory authorities. It is also clear from the provisions of the Companies Act that a Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, after the date of its incorporation, should exhibit its name and the address of its registered office and keep the same painted or affixed on its products or goods, etc. As rightly pointed out, as per Rule 6 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Package Commodities) Rules, 1977, the package shall bear thereon or on a label, the name and address of the manufacturer, the common or generic names of the commodity. Likewise, Section 148 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1954 mandates that a cosmetic shall carry on both the inner and outer labels, the name of the cosmetic. 10. Likewise, Section 148 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1954 mandates that a cosmetic shall carry on both the inner and outer labels, the name of the cosmetic. 10. On going through the above provisions, we are satisfied that the carton JOLEN is registered in the name of the second respondent in India under Copy Rights Act, 1957 and the petitioner's application for registration of trademark JOLEN was refused and the ownership of trademark JOLEN is subjudice in O.S.No.397 of 2000 pending before this Court and taking note of the other statutory provisions referred to above, we are satisfied that there cannot be any injunction directing the respondents to violate the above said provisions. 11. Since an attack was made with reference to verification of the cartons by the learned single Judge and his ultimate conclusion regarding the use of words "OLINA" and "from the house of JOLEN International Ltd.", we also verified both products and we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge that it is the catchy word "OLINA", which enters the eyes of the buyer that he has to buy. In this regard, as rightly pointed out by the respondents that they have been marketing in the name of JOLEN right from the year 1987. It is the definite case of the respondents that pursuant to the order of injunction granted in the earlier suit, they are not displaying on the carton, the word JOLEN in any manner at all on the front and rear side of the carton. We also find that the colour scheme adopted by the petitioner in its carton and the colour scheme adopted by the respondents in their carton do not appear to be same having a telling-similarity which may cause confusion in the mind of any buyer. 12. Apart from these aspects, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the respondents, the learned Judge in the impugned order safeguarded the interest of both by issuing certain directions. The learned Judge has directed the respondents to diminish the size of expression "JOLEN International Limited" and the expression "marketed by JOLEN International Ltd." to the minimum extent possible and also directed to remove the words "from the house of" wherever that expression is used on the top side of the carton. The learned Judge has directed the respondents to diminish the size of expression "JOLEN International Limited" and the expression "marketed by JOLEN International Ltd." to the minimum extent possible and also directed to remove the words "from the house of" wherever that expression is used on the top side of the carton. The said directions are also made applicable to all the advertisements, circulars and other promotional literature, including the materials made available in web site. In addition to the above conditions, the learned Judge has also directed the respondents to furnish a bank guarantee in favour of the Registrar General of this Court for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs on or before 08.03.2005, which shall be kept in till the disposal of the suit. It is also brought to our notice that the learned Judge passed the order without prejudice to the submissions of the learned counsel for either side with reference to their clients' case on merits and demerits and the learned Judge also directed listing of the suit on 11.04.2005 for disposal. In the light of our discussion, in view of the statutory positions as explained above, factual materials and strict conditions imposed as well as safeguards made and of the fact that the said order is passed only as an interim measure, we do not find any valid ground for interference. Accordingly, all the appeals fail and are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected CMPs. are also dismissed.