BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a suit for permanent injunction, infringement of copyright, passing off and rendition of accounts, etc. The defendant did not appear despite service of summons and, therefore, this court by an order dated 27. 07. 2005 directed that the defendant be proceeded with ex parte. The plaintiff was permitted to lead its ex parte evidence through affidavits and was also permitted to file the documents. The plaintiff has filed the evidence affidavits of one Mrs Sree K. Patel and of Mr Gururaja R. Rao. The plaintiff has also filed various documents which have been exhibited as Exhibits-P-1 to P- 4. ( 2 ) I have examined the pleadings, heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and have also examined the evidence on record and find that the packaging employed by the defendant is deceptively similar to the one that is employed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff s packaging is exhibit-P-2 and that of the defendant is Exhibit-P-4. The colour scheme, the style and the getup all seem to be virtually identical except for the change of name of the product from AGRIMIN (used by the plaintiff) and LACTOMIN (used by the defendant) and some other minor changes. ( 3 ) IN these circumstances, I feel that the plaintiff has been able to prove and establish that the packaging employed by the defendant is deceptively similar to that employed by the plaintiff who has been in this business since the year 1987 as indicated by the sales figures given in paragraph 7 of the plaint which go uncontroverted. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff in terms of paragraph 17 (a) of the plaint with costs. Insofar as the prayers with regard to rendition of accounts and damages are concerned, the same have been given up by the plaintiff. The decree sheet be prepared accordingly. The suit as well as all the pending applications stand disposed of. .