Judgment : This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2008 in O.S.No.2035/2007 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge Bangalore allowing I.A.No. II filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 2. Appellant is defendant and respondent is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. In the judgment, for convenience, he parties are referred to their status before the Trial Court. 3. Plaintiff is a registered partnership firm carrying on its business in the manufacture and sale of footwear and allied products under the registered trademark 'PARAGON'. The plaintiff is having exclusive right over the registered trademark 'PARAGON' and therefore they are entitled to protect the mark from misuse by any other person. The plaintiff by spending huge sum of money popularised the registered trademark 'PARAGON' and the same has acquired reputation, goodwill and a distinctive character representing the plaintiff's products. Though the plaintiff is using the registered trademark 'PARAGON' from the year 1975, the same is registered in the year 1987 and since then they are continuously using the same for sale of their rubber products. It is further stated that as on the date of filing of the suit the annual turnover of the plaintiff company was Rs.300 crores. The plaintiff further contends, that the trademark 'PARAGON' is a 'well known trademark'. In the month of December, 2006 the plaintiffs came to know that the defendants by adopting the word 'PARAGON' which is identical to the plaintiff's registered mark had entered into the market to encash the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's trademark. The defendants deceptively adopted the plaintiff's trademark for sale of twisted steel rods. This act on the part of the defendants amounts to infringement of plaintiff's trademark. Therefore the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.2035/2007 for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing with the plaintiff's trademark, particularly the word 'PARAGON', to render true accounts, to pay damages and for other reliefs. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No.II under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PARAGON' for sale of their products, particularly steel rods. 4. The defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court, filed written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff's are not the owners of trademark 'PARAGON'. 4. The defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court, filed written statement inter alia contending that the plaintiff's are not the owners of trademark 'PARAGON'. The defendants are using the word 'PARAGON' for sale of their product, that is twisted steel rods from the year 1983 and plaintiffs have slept over their rights for all these years and as such they are barred by acquiescence. It is further contended that the word 'PARAGON' is a dictionary word and plaintiffs cannot claim exclusive right over the said word. The plaintiffs are using the mark in respect of the footwear and rubber products. On the other hand the defendants are using the word 'PARAGON' in respect of steel rods and therefore there is no infringement of trademark as alleged by the plaintiff. Since the products are different, there could not be any passing off trademark. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claim that 'PARAGON' is well known trademark. The defendants further contend that there is no cause of action and the Court at Bangalore has no jurisdiction. 5. The Trial Court on appreciation of the pleadings and material on record held that the trademark of plaintiff is a well known mark and therefore the defendants by adopting the same have infringed the trademark of plaintiff. The Trial Court further held that on account of infringement of trade mark of the plaintiff, they are put to irreparable loss and injury. Consequently under the impugned order the Trial Court allowed I.A. No.II and restrained the defendants from using the trademark word 'PARAGON' and also from passing off its goods as that of plaintiff pending disposal of the suit. Hence, this appeal by the defendants. 6. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire appeal papers. Though number of decisions are relied on both the sides, the relevant decisions are referred in this order. Now the only question that arise for my consideration is Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case. the Trial Court is correct in passing the impugned order? 7. It is the specificcase of plaintiffs that the trade mark 'PARAGON' is registered in the name of plaintiff and it has got exclusive right over the mark and therefore, they are entitle to protect the mark from misusing by any other person. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs have produced 12 documents as per Ex.D2 to D17. 7. It is the specificcase of plaintiffs that the trade mark 'PARAGON' is registered in the name of plaintiff and it has got exclusive right over the mark and therefore, they are entitle to protect the mark from misusing by any other person. In support of this contention, the plaintiffs have produced 12 documents as per Ex.D2 to D17. These documents are registration certificate, renewal certificates and certificates to be produced in legal proceedings. A perusal of these documents discloses that the plaintiff has registered the trademark word as PARAGON, PARAGON CUSHION, PARAGON SUPREME, PARAGON GOLDIE, PARAGON LION and PARAGON SAFARI. The suit was filed before the Trial Court on 12.3.2007. There is no valid registration certificate of the trademark of the plaintiff as on the date of filing the suit. The Trial Court noticed in para 12 of its order that the plaintiff's counsel submitted that the registration of the trademark is renewed and the plaintiff will produce necessary documents in due process of time. But the plaintiff has not produced any such renewal certificates either before the Trial Court or before this court. The Trial Court committed a mistake in holding that plaintiffs have made out a prima-facie case in the absence of any documentary evidence showing they possess valid registration certificate of the trade mark in question as on the date of filing the suit. Further sub-section 1 of Section 27 of the Trade marks Act (for short the Act) specifies that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent or to recover damages for the infringement of unregistered trademark. In the event of trade mark being not renewed, when it becomes due in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the person in whose name the trade mark stood registered, cannot claim that he is the registered trade mark owner. 8. Even if the plaintiff is having registration certificate of trade mark in question, then the same is restricted to the goods traded or manufactured. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff's registration certificate specifies that it is in respect of goods in class 1,7,17 and 25, of Fourth Schedule to the Act. These certificates further specifies the names, different types of Rubber products, Foot Wear and its allied parts. On the other hand the defendants are dealing in twisted steel rods. In the instant case, admittedly, the plaintiff's registration certificate specifies that it is in respect of goods in class 1,7,17 and 25, of Fourth Schedule to the Act. These certificates further specifies the names, different types of Rubber products, Foot Wear and its allied parts. On the other hand the defendants are dealing in twisted steel rods. There can be number of trade marks containing the same name comfortably co-exist when they are associated with different goods or services and in different business jurisdictions. When registration is made in a particular clause in Fourth schedule to the Act then there is no bar for using the same for goods and services specified under different clauses, except when the trade mark is a 'well known trade mark'. 9. In the impugned order the Trial Court held that the trademark of plaintiffs is a well-known trademark. Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act, defines what is meant by a 'well-known trade mark' and the same reads as under: "well-known trade", in relation to any goods or services, means a mark which has become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation to other goods or services would be likely to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to the first-mentioned goods or services. 10. Section 11(6) of the Act, specifies that the Registrar under the Act is empowered to determine whether a trademark is a well-known trademark. Sub-section 6 and 7 of Section 11 of the Act further specifies what are the relevant facts to be taken into consideration while determining 'well known trade mark'. Sub-section 8 of Section 11 of the Act specifies that it a trademark has been determined to be well-known in at least one relevant section of the public in India by any court or Registrar, the Registrar shall consider that trademark for registration under this Act. In the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the Registrar under the Act or any court having determined the trademark of the plaintiff as a 'well-known trademark'. In the instant case, there is no material on record to show that the Registrar under the Act or any court having determined the trademark of the plaintiff as a 'well-known trademark'. The Trial Court without recording the evidence and without providing an opportunity to the parties committed an illegality in holding that the trademark of the plaintiff is a 'well-known trademark'. Therefore the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is liable to be quashed. 11. The goods traded and manufactured under the trade name 'Paragon' by the plaintiff's is in respect of rubber products, footwear and its allied parts. On the other hand the defendants are trading and manufacturing twisted steel rods. The goods are different, end users are different and the channels of marketing are different. According to the plaintiff's they are using the trade mark in relation to certain type of goods from the year 1975 and the same was registered in the year 1987. On the other hand the defendants are using the same trade mark for different goods from the year 1983. Therefore at this stage the balance of convenience is not in favour of plaintiffs. 12. The word 'passing off' means that the defendants must have sold its goods or offered its services in a manner which has deceived or would likely to deceive the public into thinking that the defendant's goods or services, are of the plaintiff's. The action of 'Passing off' depend upon the proof of volume of sales, extent of advertisement, turnover, misrepresentation by the defendant, malafide intention on the part of defendant, the confusion to the public and the loss suffered by the plaintiff. At this stage there is no primafacie evidence on record to show the defendants are intentionally misrepresenting, public are confused and that the plaintiffs have suffered losses. No hardship or loss will be caused to plaintiffs if temporary injunction is refused, but, on the other hand the defendants will be put to great hardship and loss if an injunction order is granted. For the reasons stated above, the following:- Order i) The appeal is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2008 in O.S.No.2035/2007 passed by the 18th City Civil Judge, Bangalore is hereby set aside. iii) IA.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2035/2007 is hereby dismissed. For the reasons stated above, the following:- Order i) The appeal is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2008 in O.S.No.2035/2007 passed by the 18th City Civil Judge, Bangalore is hereby set aside. iii) IA.No.2 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2035/2007 is hereby dismissed. iv) The trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible without being influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order. All contentions are left open. Ordered accordingly.