Judgment :- (1.) The application bearing G.A. No.1045 of 2009 is taken up for hearing. (2.) The prayer in this application is for dismissal of the suit and/or rejection of the plaint filed therein. Ms. Chama Mukherjee, in support of the application, submits that the provisions of section 93 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 creates a bar to entertain a suit of this nature. (3.) The relief claim in the suit is for perpetual injunction from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade mark "EVEREADY" and also for perpetual injunction on the ground of passing off. In my view, the bar created under section 93 of the Act operates in relation to any proceeding initiated for 2 registration of the mark before the Registrar of Trade Marks and appeal, and other action in connection therewith. In my view, jurisdiction exercised by the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Appellate Authority is quite distinct and different from that of the civil court in a common law action and also infringement action. (4.) Infringement action is broadly based on two essential ingredients, namely, (i) if a particular trader has got prior registration of his mark; and (ii) anyone without any authority or permission and without having any registration uses same mark or deceptively similar mark. It is settled law that passing off action has nothing to do with registration. It merely relates to the time of user. Under such circumstances, I think that the action by Ms. Mukherjees client before the Registrar of Trade Marks has no relevance nor correlation at this stage. But question may arise while obtaining registration, whether they are the first user or not. In that case, it is open for the Registrar to decide independently and without being influenced by any observation and prima facie finding of this Court. (5.) I therefore hold that the suit is not barred under the aforesaid provisions of section 93 of the Trade Marks Act. For the convenience sake, section 93 is set out below: "93. Bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.- No court or other authority shall have or, be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in subsection (1) of section 91." (6.) This application is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Bar of jurisdiction of courts, etc.- No court or other authority shall have or, be entitled to, exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred to in subsection (1) of section 91." (6.) This application is thus dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. (7.) The learned counsel appearing for the defendants nos.3, 6, 12, 13, 14 and 16, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants nos.2, 7, 11 and 15 and the learned counsel appearing for the defendants nos.1, 4, 9 and 10 3 submit that they have stopped using the trade mark EVEREADY. According to them, when they have stopped using the mark it hardly matters whether the injunction order remains or not. (8.) Under such circumstances, considering the balance of convenience, in order to avoid any further controversy in future, the interim order already passed will continue until further orders of this court. I am also told that the parties are going to settle the matter outside court. Once such settlement is arrived at, it will be open for the parties to approach this court for passing appropriate order. In view of the above order, G.A. No.1045 of 2009 accordingly stands disposed of. By consent of the parties, G.A. No.1040 of 2009 and G.A. No.1041 of 2009 are also treated on days list and disposed of accordingly in terms of the above order. (9.) All parties concerned are to act on a photostat signed copy of this order on the usual undertakings.