BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit, inter aha, for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trade Mark, Copyright, Passing Off, and Rendition of Accounts/damages, Delivery up. ( 2 ) THE defendant had been directed to be proceeded with exparte by virtue of an order dated 25. 2. 2004 Thereafter, the plaintiff led its exparte evidence in the form of an affidavit of one Mr. C Napoleon, who is the Company Secretary of the plaintiff company. Along with the evidence affidavit of Mr. C. Napoleon, the power of attorney executed in his favour, being Ext. P-1 has been filed. In the affidavit it is stated that one Mr. Rex Coutinho was the company secretary of the plaintiff company and he had the authority to sign and verify the same at that point of time. It is also stated in the affidavit that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 20, Dr. E. Moses road, Mumbai-400001. ( 3 ) IT is stated in evidence in support of the pleadings that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations for over 40 years and that it is one of the leading manufacturers of medicinal preparations in the trade. One of the products manufactured by the plaintiff is tonic syrup marketed under the trade mark DEXORANGE. The said tonic syrup comprises of a combination of iron, folic acid and Vitamin B12. It is stated that the said preparation is not a scheduled drug and is, thus, sold across counter without the necessity of requiring a doctor s prescription. It is also contended that the trade mark DEXORANGE is an invented and coined mark by the plaintiff which has no meaning whatsoever in common parlance, under the english dictionary or any medical pharmacopoeia. Ext. P-2 is a sample packaging of the plaintiff s product DEXORANGE. The plaintiff has also been able to establish that the trade mark DEXORANGE has acquired a substantial goodwill and reputation in the trade and is an identifiable product. The sales figures have also been given for several years and for 1999-2000 to Rs. 46,27,21,000/ -. The trade mark has also been registered by the plaintiff under registration No. 269335 dated 11. 1. 1971. A copy of the certificate is marked as Ext. P-3. Ext. The sales figures have also been given for several years and for 1999-2000 to Rs. 46,27,21,000/ -. The trade mark has also been registered by the plaintiff under registration No. 269335 dated 11. 1. 1971. A copy of the certificate is marked as Ext. P-3. Ext. P-4 is a Registration certificate under the Copyright Act with regard to the artistic work on the packaging of the plaintiff s product. The plaintiff has been able to show and establish that it is the proprietor of the trade mark DEXORANGE and that it has a copyright in the artistic work of the packaging with regard to the said product. ( 4 ) IN the affidavit it is also stated that the defendant adopted the mark decorange in respect of the tonic syrup made by the defendant. The tonic syrup made by the defendant has the same composition as that made by the plaintiff. It is stated by the plaintiff that there is no justification by the defendant for the adoption and use of the deceptively similar trade mark DEXORANGE belonging to the plaintiff. I have examined this position and I find that the statements made by the plaintiff are well founded. Insofar as the packaging is concerned, the same also appears to be an imitation of the packaging of the plaintiff. This can be easily confused from seeing the packaging of the defendant which is Ext. P5 with that of the plaintiff which is Ext. P-2. The tests applied in the case of Parele Products (P) ltd. v. J. P. and Co. , Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359 and R. G. Anandv. M/s. Delux films and Others, AIR 1978 SC 1613 with regard to the trade mark and copyright, respectively, are fully satisfied in the present case. This is so because the trade mark as well as the artistic work of the defendant can easily be confused with the trade mark and artistic work of the plaintiff. ( 5 ) AS such, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the defendant has adopted the trade mark and packaging with the complete knowledge of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff s trade mark DEXORANGE. If the defendant is permitted to continue to carry on with such trade mark, it would amount to defraud consumers and to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. If the defendant is permitted to continue to carry on with such trade mark, it would amount to defraud consumers and to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the plaintiff does not have access to the books of account of the defendant because the defendant has not appeared in these proceedings at all and has been proceeded with exparte. In the absence of the books of account it was not possible for the plaintiff to quantify the extent of damages that he could claim and, therefore, the plaintiff has only claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by way of token damages so as to deter the defendant from carrying on any future infringing activities. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decisions of this court in the case of Relaxo Rubber Limited and Another v. Selection Footwear and Anr. , 81 (1999) DLT 202=1999 PTC (19) 578 and Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances, 82 (1999) DLT 5 91=1999 PTC (19)685. These cases show that this Court has been awarding token damages in such circumstances of an amount of about Rs. 3,00,000/ -. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- was fixed in these decisions in 1999. However, looking into the decline in the real value of the rupee because of inflation the amount should be enhanced. I find that there is substance in this argument and the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to token damages of Rs. 5,00,000/ -. The plaintiff is entitled to and is granted a decree in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) as contained in paragraph 20 of the plaint. In addition, the plaintiff, in lieu of rendition of accounts and for damages, is awarded token damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- as mentioned hereinabove. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the proceedings. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The suit and all pending applications stand disposed of. Suit and Applications disposed of. .