JUDGMENT This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 09-06-2009 passed in LA.No.I577 of 2009 in 0.5.No.256 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder the learned Chief Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and thereby made the interim injunction granted on 23-04-2009 as absolute. 2. Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this C.M.A. by the defendant in 0.5.No.256 of 2009 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, are; The respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.256 of 2009. The 1st plaintiff is M/s. Aswini Homeo Pharmacy, rep. by its Proprietor Sri B.Ch. V. Subba Rao @ Aswini Subba Rao and 2nd plaintiff is Mis. Aswini Pharmaceuticals, rep. by its proprietrix Smt. Maheshwari W/o. B.Ch.V. Subba Rao, through their C.P.A. Holder Sri B. Anil Kumar, who is no other than their son. Ashwini Chemical Works is the defendant in the suit and it is represented by its Proprietor T. Bala Mahesh. B.Ch.V. Subba Rao established a factory for manufacture and sale of homeo hair oil and named the product as ASWIN I HOMEO HAIR OIL and his business as ASWINI HOMEO PHARMACY and obtained all licences and permission from the authorities concerned. He expanded the business and in the process, he commenced Aswini Pharmaceuticals in the name of his wife Smt. B. Maheswari. The plaintiffs introduced several products from time to time. The products manufactured are hair oils, bath powder, coconut oil, muscle oil, tooth powders, shampoo, cosmetics, diabetic atta food items, medical products etc. They have been marketing their products under brand name' ASWINI'. According to them, the brand name ASWINI became a household name of their family in the general public and the general public and traders started calling the founder B.Ch.V. Subba Rao as Aswini Subba Rao. Thus, the brand name became the surname and household name of the founder Sri B.Ch. V. Subba Rao. The petitioner applied for and obtained valid certificates from the Trade Marks Registry on 06-10-1992 vide No.657936 as per the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They obtained several trade mark certificates for different goods and services under Class 3, 5, 30 and 35 of Schedule IV of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. V. Subba Rao. The petitioner applied for and obtained valid certificates from the Trade Marks Registry on 06-10-1992 vide No.657936 as per the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They obtained several trade mark certificates for different goods and services under Class 3, 5, 30 and 35 of Schedule IV of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. They have four units in the manufacture of products, branch offices in 7 States and 600 distributors. They also obtained trade mark in 2007 vide Certificate No.2460497 with an intention to export the products to foreign countries. As of now, their products got market not only in India, but also in foreign countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Dubai. Whileso, according to them, in the month of August, 2005, their Sales Executives came across one detergent cake in the name of ASHWINI. They got issued notice to the defendant, who has been marketing its products under brand name ASHWINI. The defendant got issued a reply on 15-09-2005. The defendant is stated to have assured that he would withdraw the brand name ASHWINI and continue the other brand name SUPER 9.In the month of May, 2008, the plaintiffs came to know that the defendant had applied for registration of trademark ASHWINI and therefore, they lodged opposition vide No. MAS 724991 to the application No.866449. But Registry of Trademarks rejected the opposition on the ground that the said opposition is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed. The plaintiffs applied for registration of trademarks for several goods and proposed products. The defendant filed opposition vide No.730258 to the said application of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is passing on the detergent cake under brand name ASHWINI so as to make it appear that it is the product of ' ASWINI group owned by them. The intention of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs, to reap the benefits from out of the goodwill and reputation of the ASWINI products. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant is passing on the detergent cake under brand name ASHWINI so as to make it appear that it is the product of ' ASWINI group owned by them. The intention of the defendant, according to the plaintiffs, to reap the benefits from out of the goodwill and reputation of the ASWINI products. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the following reliefs: (a) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION be granted thereby restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, and or any other person or persons claiming through and or under him, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly and or indirectly dealing in and under the mark' ASWINI' or any mark either phonetically and or visually identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademark 'ASWINI' and or from doing any other thing as is likely to lead infringement of the plaintiffs, trade mark' ASWINI' in Ashwini detergent cake and powder; (b) A PERPETUAL INJUNCTION be granted thereby restraining the defendant, his servants, agents and or any other person or persons claiming through and or under him, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly and or indirectly dealing in and under the mark "ASWINI" or any mark either phonetically and or visually identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademark' ASWINI' i.e., Ashwini detergent cake and powder and or from doing any other thing as is likely to lead passing off of the goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiffs. (c) Costs of the suit be awarded; (d) AND any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs found entitled to maybe granted." The plaintiffs filed LA.No.1577 of2009 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction pending the suit. An ad interim injunction came to be granted on 23-04-2009 by the trial Court. 3. The defendant filed counter in I.A.No.1577 of 2009 resisting the claim of the plaintiffs. The counter filed in opposition to the temporary injunction application in brief is:- The defendant has been engaged in production of washing powder, cleaning powder and liquids and marketing the same under the trademark Ashwini from the year 1998. The defendant applied for registration of trademark label under No.866448, which was published in the Trademarks Journal No.l381 (Regular) at page 86 inviting oppositions by the members of the public. The defendant applied for registration of trademark label under No.866448, which was published in the Trademarks Journal No.l381 (Regular) at page 86 inviting oppositions by the members of the public. Neither of the plaintiffs lodged opposition, but one Aswini Homeo and Ayurvedic Products Ltd. sought to oppose its registration, but the said opposition was rejected by the Trademarks Registry, Chennai and the mark of the defendant is allowed to go on in the register. The 2nd plaintiff applied for registration of Trademark ASWINI under No.1559260 on 16-05-2007. The mark was opposed by the defendant under opposition No. 730258, which was pending disposal before the Trademarks Registry, Chennai on the date of filing of the suit. B. Anil Kumar, G.P.A. holder of the plaintiffs is not entitled to verify the plaint and to depose the averments contained in the affidavit in the absence of any documentary evidence. B.Ch.V. Subba Rao, proprietor of the 1st plaintiff concern has ever (sic. never) manufactured and marketed homeopathy medicines, which include homeo hair oil under the trademark 'Aswini homeo hair oil' under the trade name ASWINI pharmacy at any time from the year 1990. The trademark ASWINI was registered in the name of third parties independently and the search result generated from the date base of trademark registry reveals that the trademark ASWINI was not only registered in the name of several parties, but several applications are pending registration. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that their trademark ASWINI has acquired distinctive character and reputation in relation to the products manufactured by them is false. Even otherwise, the goodwill and the reputation if any acquired in respect of a particular goods are confined to those goods only and that the reputation and the goodwill does not extend to the other goods. The plaintiffs have yet to commence manufacture of detergents. Whereas the defendant has been regularly manufacturing and selling its detergents under trademark ASHWINI from the year 1998. The defendant has been using the trademark ASHWINI for the detergents earlier, prior or anterior user of the mark than that of the plaintiffs. Under the provisions of the Act, the rights of an earlier user of a trademark are placed on a higher pedestal even than the rights of a registered proprietor of the same trademark in respect of the same goods. Under the provisions of the Act, the rights of an earlier user of a trademark are placed on a higher pedestal even than the rights of a registered proprietor of the same trademark in respect of the same goods. Under Section 28 of the Act, rights granted to the registered proprietor are subject to the other provisions of the Act, which includes protection to the earlier user. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of registration of their trademarks, if any, in respect of the same or different description of goods and try to usurp the rights of the defendant to the trademark ASHWINI in respect of detergents. As per the search result generated from the date base of trademark registry, the trademark ASWINI does not belong to the plaintiffs. The trademark bearing No.657936 is TOWER filed by Bhasawkar Jainstral, P.O. Sainthia Dist., Biabhom in Class 3 in respect of soaps and washing powder and that the application was treated as abandoned. Since the plaintiffs approached the Court suppressing the material facts, they are not entitled to seek discretionary relief of injunction. The plaintiffs allowed the defendant to manufacture and market their products under trademark ASHWINI for their detergent cakes for over a decade or at any rate from 2005 when there was exchange of notices, which amounts to acquiescence of the plaintiffs in respect of the mark and therefore, the plaintiffs are estopped to file the suit at a belated stage. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs since the defendant has been using the trademark ASHWINI in respect of detergent cakes for over a decade and the plaintiffs, have not started using of the mark in respect of the said goods. 4. Neither party chose to adduce any ocular evidence in support of their respective contentions before the trial Court. But, the plaintiffs marked 29 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-29 and the defendants marked 18 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-18 to substantiate their respective contentions. 5. The learned Chief Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have satisfied essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark ASHWINI for their detergent cakes and thereby made the ad interim injunction granted on 23-04-2009 as absolute, by order dated 09-06-2009. The said order is assailed in this Civil Miscellaneous appeal filed under Order 43, Rule 1 r/w. Section 151 CPC. 6. Both the parties filed petitions to receive certain documents as additional evidence on their behalf. The said applications being CMP No.1940 and 1935 of 2009 came to be allowed on 02-11-2009. More precisely, CMP N 0.1940 of 2009 is filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and whereas CMP No.1935 of 2009 is filed by the appellant/defendant. The additional documents received on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs are marked as Exs.P-30 and P-31 and the additional documents received on behalf of the appellant/defendant are marked as Exs.R-19 to R-23. At this juncture, I deem it appropriate to give the details of the documents received as additional evidence on behalf of the parties. EX.P-30 is the Photostat copy of the entry in the Register of Trade Marks relating to registration of Trade Mark No.597262 in respect of hair oil and all other goods included under class 3. Ex.P-31 is the Photostat copy of the entry in Register of Trade Marks relating to Registration of Trade Mark No. 1559259 in respect of Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use etc. included in class 3 issued on 13-02-2009. Ex.R-19 is the Photostat copy of the certificate of registration, bearing No.825785, dated 18-08-2009 issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks. Ex.R-20 is the Photostat copy of Certified Copy of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 09-09-2009. Ex.R-21 is the Copy of the order of the Trade Marks Registry bearing No.TLA/16728, dated 03-09-2003. Ex.R-22 is the Office copy of the letter sent on behalf of the appellant/defendant to the Registrar of Trademarks, dated 15-07-2003, and Ex.R-23 is the office copy of the application filed by the predecessor in title of the appellant/ defendant together with an additional representation returned by the Trademarks Registry allotting No.866446, dated 16-07-1999. 7. Heard Sri K. Hemaprakasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant and Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff (sic. 7. Heard Sri K. Hemaprakasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant and Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff (sic. defendant) submits that the appellant/defendant has been manufacturing and marketing detergent cakes with trademark ASHWINI since 2003 after acquiring right over the trademark under a deed of assignment executed by ASHWINI CHEMICAL WORKS, a proprietary concern of K. Srinivas and K. Venkatesh, who have conceived, coined and adapted ASHWINI as a trademark in respect of washing powder, cleaning powder and liquid as early as in 1998. The appellant/defendant got substituted its name in the application filed before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai with application bearing No.866448, dated 19-07-1999, and the Trademarks Registry recognized the assignment and issued certificate on 18-08-2009 and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff (sic. defendant) became the proprietor of trademark ASHWINI with a particular device since the date of filing of the petition i.e., 19-07-1999. The learned counsel took me to the certificate issued by the registrar of trademarks, on 18-08-2009 along with its enclosures, which contain particulars such as date of filing the application, date of registration and the date of issuance of the certificate, trademark type, word mark and device. As per the certificate, the work mark is Ashwini and the device is running horse with a divine woman thereon. The learned counsel would contend that the trademark Aswini which has been claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs has been used by good number of persons in which case the respondents/plaintiffs cannot claim to be the exclusive users of the said trademark. Learned counsel refers the copies of the search reports with regard to trademark ASWINI, which have been filed along with the material paper book running from Pages 45 of 93. It has been strenuously contended by the learned counsel that the appellant/defendant has been manufacturing detergent cakes and trading the same with trademark ASHWINI and whereas, the respondents/plaintiffs have not yet commenced manufacturing detergent cakes and in which case there is no question of confusion among the consumers. He would also contend that temporary injunction pending the suit against the appellant/ defendant not only deprives the appellant/ defendant from carrying on the business in detergent cakes, but also deprives the livelihood of good number of persons who have been engaged by the appellant/ defendant in the manufacturing and marketing detergent cakes. He would also contend that temporary injunction pending the suit against the appellant/ defendant not only deprives the appellant/ defendant from carrying on the business in detergent cakes, but also deprives the livelihood of good number of persons who have been engaged by the appellant/ defendant in the manufacturing and marketing detergent cakes. The learned counsel referred various provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 laid much emphasis that the respondents/plaintiffs' trademark is not a well known trademark as defined under the Act and in which case, temporary injunction granted by the learned Chief Judge restraining the defendant from using the trademark ASHWINI to the detergent products is unsustainable. Learned counsel contended that the respondents/plaintiffs knowing fully well at least from the year 2005 onwards did not raise any objection for the appellant/defendant in using the trade mark ASHWINI and inaction on the part of the respondents/plaintiffs amounts to their acquiescence for the use of the trademark Ashwini by the appellant/ defendant for its detergents. The respondents/plaintiffs are doing business in products other than that of the appellant/ defendant and since there is no similarity between the two products, there is no question of customers being misled or misguided or get confused. He would further contend that the investigation made by the appellant/defendant has revealed that there are more than 8 units, which have registered their trademark ASWIN I. It is contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court having observed in para 7 of the impugned order that goods sold by the plaintiffs and defendant are different, committed serious error in injuncting the appellant/defendant from using the trademark ASHWINI for its detergent cakes. He also contended that there are number of inconsistencies in the certificates placed on record by the respondents/plaintiffs. The inconsistencies pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant are in respect of trademark numbers. At page 17 of the material papers filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, the trademark number is shown as 597262/B. Whereas, the trademark number shown in page 54 of the material papers as 597262. Under the heading goods and descriptions stated as hair oil and all other goods included under class 3. Whereas, under trademark No.597262, the description of the goods stated as hair oil included in class 3. Under the heading goods and descriptions stated as hair oil and all other goods included under class 3. Whereas, under trademark No.597262, the description of the goods stated as hair oil included in class 3. By pointing out the discrepancies in the registration number and goods and descriptions, the learned counsel contended that they are fabricated for the purpose of this case. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (1) Canon Kabllshiki Kaisha v. B. Mahajmz and others (1) 2007 (35) PTC 265 (Del.). (2) M. Mahender Shah v. Tiruchy Flour Mills, Trichy (2) 1997 (2) AL T 391. (3) M/s. Hindllstan Raidators Co. v. M/s. Hindustan Radiators Ltd. (3) AIR 1987 Delhi 353. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs submits that the respondents/plaintiffs are the proprietary concern and all the proprietors are the family members of B.Ch.V. Subba Rao, who have coined the word ASWIN I and got registered the trademark in respect of various products, manufactured and marketed and the said B.Ch.V.Subba Rao has been called as Aswini Subba Rao by the general public and the trade name ASWINI has become the household name of the family of B.Ch.V.subba Rao. The brand name ASWINI and the product obtained a particular recognition, goodwill, unbelievable reputation and distinctiveness and the same are associated exclusively with the plaintiffs and the said mark COnI10te and denote to all its users, customers and general public at large, the connection with the plaintiffs and none else. The learned counsel submitted that the trademark of the appellant/defendant ASHWINI is deceptively similar in sound as that of the trademark of the respondents/plaintiffs i.e. ASWIN I. There is any amount of confusion among the customers and every likelihood of the customers believe that the detergent cake marketed by the appellant/defendant in the name of ASHWINI as that of respondents/plaintiffs. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as eye. There is a close affinity of sound between ASHWINI and ASWINI. The resemblance between the two marks must be considered with reference to the ear as well as eye. There is a close affinity of sound between ASHWINI and ASWINI. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the principle of similarity cannot be very rigidly applied and if it is prima facie shows that there was dishonest intention on the part of the defendant in using the trademark and the mere delay in bringing the matter to the Court is not a ground to defeat the case of the plaintiffs. He would also submit that the appellant/defendant intends to trade upon the goodwill, name and reputation of the respondents/plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs have built-up during the last 20 years and the conduct of the appellant/ defendant in branding their product as ASHWINI is fraudulent. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the following decisions: (1) Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft v. Hybo Hindustan (4) AIR 1994 Delhi 239 (2) Bata India Ltd. v. M/s. Pyare Lal and Co. (5) AIR 1985 Al1.242 (3) K.R. China Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal and Co. and another (6) AIR 1970 S.C. 146 (4) Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (7) AIR 1965 S.C. 980 (5) Heinz Italia and another v. Dabur India Ltd. (8) 2007 (5) ALT 41 (SC) = 2007 (6) SCJ 329 = (2007) 6 SCC 1 (6) N.R. Dongre and others Whirlpool Corporation and another (9) (1996) 5 SCC 714 10. At the outset it must be pointed out that I am presently concerned only with the proceedings for ad interim injunction claimed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, I am accordingly, confining myself to the limited aspect only, with large issues left open for decision in the suit. 11. The trademark law in India has undergone drastic reforms resulting in the repeal of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, by the Trademarks Act, 1999. This Act of 1999 came into force from September, 2003. The new Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, makes the Indian law at par with the international standards. The new Act recognizes service marks. It has done away with the system of maintaining registration of trademarks in part A and part B with different legal rights, and to provide only single register with simplified procedure for registration and with equal rights. The new Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, makes the Indian law at par with the international standards. The new Act recognizes service marks. It has done away with the system of maintaining registration of trademarks in part A and part B with different legal rights, and to provide only single register with simplified procedure for registration and with equal rights. The concept of well-known trademarks is introduced. To streamline and simplify the procedure of registration, it is now made possible to file one single application for registration of mark in different classes of goods and services. The initial terms of protection is also enhanced from the previous 7 years to 10 years. The new Trademark law has also broadened the definition of trademarks to include shape of goods and combination of colour and it provides for registration of collective marks owned by associations etc. The basic requirement for a mark to be registered as a trademark is that it should be distinctive, capable of graphical representation, capable of distinguishing the goods or services as originating from a particular source from that of other similar goods and that mark should not be functional in nature. A mark may include any word, logo, device, branch, ticket, signature, name, shape, packaging, and combination of colours or any combination thereof. Traditionally word marks, symbols or logos were registered as trademarks. 12. In an action for passing off, the plaintiff has to establish prior user to secure an injunction and the registration of the mark or similar mark in point of time is irrelevant. Modern tort of passing off has five elements i.e., (1) a misrepresentation; (2) made by a trader in the course of trade; (3) to prospective customers of his or ultimate consumers of goods or services supplied by him; (4) which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of another trader (in the sense that this is a reasonably foreseeable consequence), and (5) which causes actual damage to a business or goodwill of the trader by whom the action is brought or (in a quia timet action) will probably do so. - vide Heinz Italia a1ld another v. Dabur India Ltd. (8 supra). 13. The order impugned in this CM.A. was passed on 09-06-2009. - vide Heinz Italia a1ld another v. Dabur India Ltd. (8 supra). 13. The order impugned in this CM.A. was passed on 09-06-2009. Subsequent to the passing of the order, the appellant/ defendant obtained certificates from the Trademarks Registrar on 18-08-2009 for trademark ASHWINI in respect of washing powder, cleaning powder and liquids. The said certificate has been marked as Ex.R.19. The 1st respondent/1st plaintiff obtained certificate dated 20-07-2009 with trademark ASWINI in respect of goods and descriptions, such as hair oils and all other goods included in Class 3. The 2nd plaintiff 2nd respondent obtained certificates dated 09-07-2009 with trademark ASWINI in respect of goods and descriptions, such as, Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions dentifrices, cosmetics kits, flower perfumes, hair colourants, hair waving preparations, jasmine oil, jelly (petroleum) for cosmetic purposes, make up powder, makeup removing preparations, face masks, oil for cosmetic purposes, rose oil, skin care, skin whitening creams, bleaching soda, stain removers, talcum powder, for toilet use, varnish (nail), washing preparations toilet soap, liquid blue, tooth paste, mouth freshener, detergent soap, detergent powder, face cream, essential oils, flower extracts, hair dyes, hair lotions, hair spray, deodorants, lip sticks, nail polish, make-up preparations, mouth washes, eye brow cosmetics, eye brow pencils, eye-lash (cosmetic preparations), role oil, rust removing preparations, polishing wax, perfumes, almond oil, almond soap, boot polish, cosmetic preparations for slimming purpose design fact an soap, false hair, false nails, false eye lashes, face powder, tooth powder, cosmetics for animals, medicated soap, shaving cream, shaving gel, shaving soap, after shave lotion, softeners cloths, starch, stain remover, skin cream, skin lotion, baby soap, baby bath powder included in class 3. 14. The certificates are exhibited as Exs.P-30 and P-31. Certificates in favour of both the parties came to be issued by the Trademark Registry after the disposal of the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiffs in the trial Court. As on this day, the appellant/defendant and respondents/plaintiffs are proprietors of trademarks ASHWINI and ASWIN I respectively. There is a separate forum provided under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to the aggrieved parties for rectification of the certificates. Therefore, I am confining myself in this appeal with regard to passing off action. 15. Phonetically the trademark ASWINI and ASHWINI are similar. There is a separate forum provided under Section 57 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 to the aggrieved parties for rectification of the certificates. Therefore, I am confining myself in this appeal with regard to passing off action. 15. Phonetically the trademark ASWINI and ASHWINI are similar. It is the case of the appellant/defendant that it acquired proprietorship over the trademark ASHWINI by virtue of deed of assignment dated 10-07-2003. 16. In an action for infringement of trade mark or of passing off, in order to establish a prima facie case for grant of ad interim injunction, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show (a) that plaintiff has been using its trading style and trade mark for quite a long period and continuously whereas the defendant has entered into the said field only recently, (b) that there has not been much delay in the filing of the suit for injunction by the plaintiff, (c) that the goods of the plaintiff have acquired a distinctiveness and are associated in the mind of the general public as goods of the plaintiff, (d) that nature of activity of the plaintiff and the defendant is same or similar, (e) that the goods of the parties to which the trade mark of the plaintiff is associated are same or similar, (f) that the user of the said trade mark or trade name by the defendant is likely to deceive and cause confusion in the public mind and injury to the business reputation of the plaintiff, (g) that the sphere of activity and the market of consumption of goods of the parties are the same, (h) that the customers of the plaintiff, inter alia, include uneducated, illiterate and wary customers who are capable of being deceived or confused or misled. Unless plaintiff's trading style or trade mark has become common property. it would be no defence for the defendant that there are some other concerns who were also using similar trading style or similar trade mark: as to whether it has become common property is a question of fact in each case. The mere fact that the defendant has got its name approved from the Registrar of Companies would not go against the claim of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. Once a prima facie case is established, balance of convenience would follow. The mere fact that the defendant has got its name approved from the Registrar of Companies would not go against the claim of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. Once a prima facie case is established, balance of convenience would follow. Even otherwise the question of balance of convenience would arise only when the parties are practically on the same level and as such their rights are about equal. However, where, the plaintiff's position is infinitely superior to that of the defendant who intends to use the trade mark and trading style of the plaintiff and consequently, there is no difficulty to hold that balance of convenience lies in the grant of ad interim injunction. Where the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of ad interim injunction, the Court can assume that irreparable injury would necessarily follow if ad interim injunction prayed for is not granted. The irreparable injury in the instant case would be the likely confusion that may be caused if the defendant is allowed to use the mark which is prima facie mark of the plaintiff-petitioner. Even otherwise. It will take quite some time before the suit is decided and if the respondent is not restrained by means of an ad interim injunction they would start manufacturing their goods under same and similar name as that of the plaintiff petitioner and would start marketing their goods with the offending mark and in course of time it might ultimately be held that the defendant-respondent had become common or concurrent user of the said trade mark. Thus, the likelihood of confusion being caused and likelihood of the plea of common or concurrent user being raised at a later stage would be the irreparable injury to the plaintiff-petitioner. Even otherwise injunction would not be refused unless the supposed consequences of deception are remote, speculative and improbable. Once the plaintiff has established that he has got a prima facie case in respect of same and similar goods, he would be prima facie entitled to ad interim injunction and heavy burden would lie upon the defendant to prove that the plaintiff should not be granted ad interim injunction. 17. In Canon Kabushiki Kaisha's case (1 supra), relied on by the appellant/ defendant, both the plaintiff and defendants got their trademarks registered. 17. In Canon Kabushiki Kaisha's case (1 supra), relied on by the appellant/ defendant, both the plaintiff and defendants got their trademarks registered. The plaintiff Company therein under the trademark CANON started its operations in manufacturing, selling of Canon and multimedia machines. Whereas the defendant therein under the trademark CANONHOLD have been manufacturing, selling bolts, rivets, nuts and screws. The registration granted to the plaintiff therein specifically excluded locks, nuts and bolts since the defendant had already adapted the same mark in respect of the same items ,since 1985. Basing on the said facts, the Delhi High Court has observed as hereunder: "It cannot be ignored that the Plaintiff though has obtained, Registration of the mark Canon in respect of the goods in class 6 but it has till date not used the said mark on any goods falling under class 6 and the defendant's submission that the plaintiff is holding on to the said mark merely to block the adoption and user of the said mark by other entities needs consideration. Even otherwise the registration obtained by the plaintiff of the mark Canon in Class 6specifically excludes the goods manufactured by the defendant. No objection was apparently raised by the plaintiff to such exclusion in the registration awarded to them. In my view, the plaintiff cannot after more than a decade, now turn around and seek to prevent a registered user of the mark in respect of goods (excluded in its own registration) from using the said mark. Prima facie, there has been considerable delay and laches on part of the plaintiff, in as much as, the registration of the mark Canonhold has not been challenged or revoked." Coming to the facts of the case on hand, there is no exclusion of the items for which the appellant/defendant has been carrying on the business in the certificate issued in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs by the trademark registry. Therefore, the cited decision has no application to the facts of the case on hand. 18. Whether there is a misrepresentation by the defendant amounting to passing off or likelihood of passing off is in each case a question of fact. No previous case can therefore, be an authority for another case. Each case must depend upon the facts I applicable to that case alone. 19. 18. Whether there is a misrepresentation by the defendant amounting to passing off or likelihood of passing off is in each case a question of fact. No previous case can therefore, be an authority for another case. Each case must depend upon the facts I applicable to that case alone. 19. In support of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant, various provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, viz., Sections 2(h), 2(m), 2(zg), 11(6), 27, 28, 29(4) and 34 of the Act have been referred. For better appreciation, I may extract the above referred provisions, which read as follows: 2(h) "deceptively similar" - A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion; 2(m) "mark" includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof; 2(zg) "well-known trade mark", in relation to any goods or services, means a mark which has become so to he 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. Section 11(6) The Registrar shall, while determining whether a trade mark is a well-known trade mark, take' into account any fact which he considers relevant for determining a trade mark as a well-known trade mark including- (i) the knowledge or recognition of that trade mark in the relevant section of the public including knowledge in India' obtained as a result of promotion of the trade mark; (ii) the duration, extent and geographical area of any use of that trade mark; (iii) the duration, extent and geographical area of any promotion of the trade mark, including, advertising or publicity and presentation, at fairs or exhibition of the goods or services to which the trade mark applies; (iv) the duration and geographical area of any registration of or any publication for registration of that trade mark under this Act to the extent they reflect the use or recognition of the trade mark; (v) the record of successful enforcement of the rights in that trade mark, in particular, the extent to which the trade mark has been recognized as a well-known trade mark by any court or Registrar under that record. Section 27. No action for infringement of unregistered trade mark: (1) No person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. (2) Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided by another person, or the remedies in respect thereof. Section 28 Rights conferred by registration (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a trade mark shall if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act. (2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. (2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. (3) Where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or nearly resemble each other, the exclusive right to the use of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by anyone of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the sale registered proprietor. Section 29 (4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which':"- (a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and (b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar •to those for which the trade mark is registered; and (c) the regblered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark. Section 34. Saving for vested rights Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use by any person of a trade mark identical with or nearly resembling it in relation to goods or services in relation to which that person or a predecessor in title of his has continuously used that trade mark from a date prior- I. to the use of the first-mentioned trade mark in relation to those goods or services be the proprietor or a predecessor in title of his; or 2. to the date of registration of the firstmentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services in the name of the proprietor of a predecessor in title of his; Whichever is the earlier, and the Registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved) to register the second mentioned trade mark by reason only to the registration of the first mentioned trade mark." 20. It is contended by the learned counsel that the trade mark of the plaintiffs does not fall within the definition of well-known trade mark and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for temporary injunction as sought for by them. He would also contend that since both the appellant/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs got their trademarks registered in respect of the goods produced/marketed by them, neither of them can sue against each of them. Much reliance has been placed on sub-section (3) of Section 28 of the Act. Learned counsel tried to impress the Court that the goods, which have been marketed by the appellant/ defendant and the goods marketed by the respondents/plaintiffs are not similar and therefore, action for infringement of trademark is impermissible. In elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel contended that the trade mark ASHWINI has been obtained by the appellant/ defendant in respect of detergent cakes and whereas, the respondents/plaintiffs obtained trademark ASWINI in respect of other goods and since the goods marketed by the appellant/defendant and the respondents/plaintiffs are not similar, no suit for action for infringement could be laid by the respondents/plaintiffs. 21. I have given my anxious consideration to the pleas advanced by the learned counsel. Fourth Schedule of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 contains classification of goods. Classes 3 and 5 need to be noted and they are thus: "3. Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning; polishing; scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery; essential oils; cosmetics; hair lotions; dentifrices. 5. Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations; dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food of babies, plasters, materials for dressings, materials for stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparation for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides." The goods manufactured and marketed by the respondents/plaintiffs fall under Classes 3 and 5. So also the goods manufactured and marketed by the appellant/defendant fall under Class 3. A plain reading of the above referred classes indicates that the various items mentioned in each class forms one group. So also the goods manufactured and marketed by the appellant/defendant fall under Class 3. A plain reading of the above referred classes indicates that the various items mentioned in each class forms one group. The respondents/plaintiffs have been manufacturing and marketing the goods mentioned in classes 3 and 5 since the year 1990. It is evidenced by the certificates obtained from the trademarks registry in the name of the proprietary concerns, which belong to either B.Ch.V.subba Rao or his family members. The yearly turnovers from 1990-91 to 2007-08 in respect of Aswini homeo pharmacy, 1994-95 to 2007-08 in respect Aswini pharmaceuticals, and 199495 to 2007-08 in respect of Aswini Homeo and Ayurvedic Products Ltd. evidenced the fact that the proprietary concerns of B.Ch.V. Subba Rao's family have been using the trademark Aswini from the year 1991. The material placed on record prima facie shows that the respondents/plaintiffs are prior users of the trademark ASWINI. Though the appellant/defendant contended that the trademark ASHWINI has been under use in respect of the goods marketed by them since 1998, no material has been placed on record to substantiate it. It is also to be noted that the appellant/defendant is an assignee of the trademark ASHWINI under a deed of assignment dated 10-07-2003 executed by K. Srinivas and K. Venkatesh. Not even a piece of paper has been placed on record to show that the assignors used the trademark for the products manufactured by them prior to assignment. Indeed the trial Court has taken note of this fact and recorded a finding that the appellant/defendant failed to produce any document to substantiate that it has been marketing the detergent cakes with trademark ASHWINI from 1998. I deem it appropriate to refer relevant portion of the finding recorded by the trial Court, which reads as hereunder: "Therefore, from the above said documents, it is evident that the respondent is marketing their product ASHWINI DETERGENT CAKE from the year 2003 onwards. Even though, he is claiming that he is selling since 1998, no document was produced that he is marketing the said product from 1998. Ex.R-15 is the notification made vide No.1381 dated 1-12-2007, wherein ASHWINI WASHING POWDER is sought for registration by the respondent and the user is claimed to be using the same from 31-12-1998. Apart from that, there is no document to show that the respondent is using the mark ASHWINI since 1998. Ex.R-15 is the notification made vide No.1381 dated 1-12-2007, wherein ASHWINI WASHING POWDER is sought for registration by the respondent and the user is claimed to be using the same from 31-12-1998. Apart from that, there is no document to show that the respondent is using the mark ASHWINI since 1998. Even though, the application was made on 19-7-1999, but the publication was made in the Trademark Journal in December, 2007 with regard to the registration of the mark ASHWINI by the respondent. On the other hand, Ex.R-14, which is the print out taken from the Website with regard to the registration of the mark ASHWINI. The word registered by various firms and the petitioners herein has registered the trademark ASWINI for Homeo Hairoil by making an application on 16-10-1992 and started using the same since 30-12-1990 and he also got registered the trademark ASWINI HAIR-OIL and other goods included under Class 29 and using from 1-1-1990 and the petitioner also made an application for registration of ASWINI for various products like bleaching powder, soaps, perfumes, cosmetics etc., and the same was opposed by the user dated 16-5-2007. Therefore, from the documents filed by the petitioners also shows that the petitioners are the prior user than that of the respondent for the mark ASWINI for their products." 22. The finding recorded by the trial Court that the respondents/plaintiffs are the prior users of the trademark ASWINI Cannot be faulted. Therefore, the respondents/ plaintiffs made out a prima facie case that they are the prior users of the trademark ASWINI. The trademark used by the appellant/defendant and the trademark used by the respondents/plaintiffs are phonetically and visually similar. The goods manufactured by both the producers are marketed through kirana general stores and supermarkets. The goods marketed by the appellant/defendant with trade mark ASHWINI deceptively appears to be the goods marketed by the respondents/ plaintiffs with the trade mark ASWINI. Much contention has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/ defendant that the respondents/plaintiffs have not yet introduced their product detergent cake in the market and therefore, there cannot be any deception in respect of the goods which are already in the market. I do not see any substance in his contention since the question is, whether the appellant/ defendant is passing off their goods as if they are of the respondents/plaintiffs. I do not see any substance in his contention since the question is, whether the appellant/ defendant is passing off their goods as if they are of the respondents/plaintiffs. Indisputably, the respondents/plaintiffs have been marketing various products with trademark ASWINI. The purchasers on looking at the product of the appellant/ defendant with trademark ASHWINI, there is every likelihood of their believing that the product is that of the respondents/ plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs satisfied all the essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 23. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed with costs.