JUDGMENT : S.J. Vazifdar. J. 1. This is an action for infringement and passing off. As leave under clause XIV of the Letters Patent has not been obtained as yet, it is restricted to one for infringement. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word marks "TRIMOL" and "TRIMOLE". The defendant has used the mark "TRIMOLGIN". I will come to the defendant's case that its mark is not "TRIMOLGIN" but "Gee TRIMOLGIN", shortly. 2. The last three letters in the defendant's mark viz. "GIN" do not prevent the defendant's mark being deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks especially "TRIMOL". The plaintiff's entire mark "TRIMOL" is subsumed in the defendant's mark "TRIMOLGIN". There is a possibility of a person with average intelligence and an imperfect recollection confusing the defendant's mark with the plaintiff's mark. There is a possibility of a person believing the defendant's mark to be but a variation of the plaintiff's mark and assuming therefore, that the defendant's product emanate from the plaintiff. 3. I do not suggest that the mere fact that the entire mark is used is decisive of infringement. It would depend upon the manner in which it is so used. In the present case, the use of the plaintiff's mark is at the forefront and forms the dominant part of the impugned mark. 4. The defendant itself appears to have believed this to be possible. The defendant contents that its mark is "GEE TRIMOLGIN". It is important to note that the defendant registered the mark in Turkmenistan for its goods bearing the trade mark "GEE TRIMOLGIN". All the letters in this composite mark are in the same font, the same size and in a straight line. The defendant has however, on its packagings used this mark by placing the letters "GEE" in a different font and in smaller lettering at an angle at the beginning of the word "TRIMOLGIN". The letters "GEE" are placed in such a manner that the word "Gee" is insignificant. The word "TRIMOLGIN" is in bold letters, the letters are far bigger both in height and width and in a much darker black colour. I have little doubt therefore that the mark that is sought to be projected by the defendant is not "GEE TRIMOLGIN" but "TRIMOLGIN" alone. The word "TRIMOLGIN" is in bold letters, the letters are far bigger both in height and width and in a much darker black colour. I have little doubt therefore that the mark that is sought to be projected by the defendant is not "GEE TRIMOLGIN" but "TRIMOLGIN" alone. The use of the letters "GEE" appears to be a preconceived defence to an action that the defendant had expected from the plaintiff. 5. The defendant's reliance upon its cartons is of no relevance. As rightly submitted by Mr. Kane, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, the pills would be sold to the consumer not in the cartons but in the strips placed within the cartons. Even assuming that the work on the carton would obviate any similarity, it would make no difference to the plaintiff's rights. 6. The defendant's relied upon the fact that there are over fifty trade marks with the prefix "TRI" and several marks with the suffix "MOL". 7. Firstly the extent of the use of such mark has not been established. Even though the application is considered at the ad- interim stage, it must be noted that the parties have had an opportunity of filing affidavits. 8. In any event in the present case the plaintiff does not rely upon the prefix TRI" alone, or the suffix "MOL" alone. The plaintiff relies upon its mark "TRIMOL" and the fact that the entire mark is subsumed in the impugned mark. By protecting its registered mark "TRIMOL", the plaintiff cannot be said to claim a monopoly in the mark "TRI" or the mark "MOU'. The reliance therefore upon the marks with the prefix "TRI" or the suffix "MOL" is not well founded. 9. It is pertinent to note the sales figures of the plaintiff's products sold under its mark "TRIMOL". The sales increased from about Rs. 51.00 lacs in the year 1987-1988 over the years. In one year, the sales were indeed as low as Rs. 6.00 lacs. In some years, however, the sales were substantial - over Rs. 2.00 crores. In many years the sales were about Rs. 1.00 crore. Rarely did the sales fall below Rs. 50.00 lacs per annum. 10. I do not refer to the sales figures while considering the action for passing off. 6.00 lacs. In some years, however, the sales were substantial - over Rs. 2.00 crores. In many years the sales were about Rs. 1.00 crore. Rarely did the sales fall below Rs. 50.00 lacs per annum. 10. I do not refer to the sales figures while considering the action for passing off. The present case is limited to the one for infringement as the leave under clause XIV of the Letters Patent has not been obtained. The sales figures establish a strong prima-facie case in the plaintiff's favour that the defendant was aware of the reputation developed by the plaintiff in its products sold under the said mark and, therefore, infringed the same. 11. The plaintiff has therefore, established that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. 12. The defendant exports its products to Turkmenistan. The defendant's products are exported in packaging which contains the mark in a foreign language. Mr. Kane's reliance upon the judgment of the learned single Court of this Court in the case of J.C. Eno Limited Vs. Vishnu Chemical Co., AIR 1941 Bom 3 is well founded. The learned Judge held as under:- I have already pointed out that very many people in India know English as well as different vernacular languages. But even if an Indian does not know English, but knows only some vernacular language, if a trader is permitted to use in that language words which have become associated with the goods of another trader in another language and are distinctive of the goods of that other trader, he is thereby putting it into the power of unscrupulous dealers to mislead and practise a deception upon the individual knowing only the one language, in that he may thereby be enabled to pass off upon that unsuspecting person goods as and for the goods of the other trader to which those particular words in another language have by long user become attributed. 13. Prima-facie thus the observations would also apply in an action for infringement. Mr. Kane also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Sami Khatib, AIR 2011 Bom 399. It was held that section 56 covers not only the goods sold in India but goods being exported. It is further held in paragraph 57:- 57. Mr. Kane also relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a party, in Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs. Sami Khatib, AIR 2011 Bom 399. It was held that section 56 covers not only the goods sold in India but goods being exported. It is further held in paragraph 57:- 57. There is nothing to suggest that if an infringing mark is only applied to products to be exported from India, the proprietor of the mark or the general public, does not have any interest which requires protection. There are innumerable reasons why and circumstances in which it could be said that even in a passing off action, the proprietor of a mark and the general public require protection in respect of the goods to be exported from India bearing the infringing mark. Merely because goods bearing an impugned mark are only exported it does not follow either as a question of law or even of fact that the proprietor of the mark is not likely to suffer substantial damage to his property in the goodwill. The assumption that goods that are exported are not exposed to residents or citizens of this country is fallacious. The mark is exposed by the unauthorized user thereof to various persons, even within the country, including manufacturers of the labels containing the mark, the manufacturers of cartons on which the labels may be applied and the containers in which the products are sold, the transporters of the goods and the various authorities that deal with the goods before they are actually exported and in the course of export. The process of inspection, quality control and export would involve the exposure of the infringing mark to employees, workers, proprietors and a variety of other persons. 14. These observations read with the observations in J.C. Eno's case prima-facie at least establish the possibility of the impugned mark even in a foreign language infringing the plaintiff's registered mark. 15. It is not necessary to consider the prayer for infringement of copyright as I intend restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trade mark "TRIMOL". The new name and the manner in which it is placed on the strips may well prevent the artistic work on the defendant's strips from infringing the plaintiff's copyright on its strips. 15. It is not necessary to consider the prayer for infringement of copyright as I intend restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's trade mark "TRIMOL". The new name and the manner in which it is placed on the strips may well prevent the artistic work on the defendant's strips from infringing the plaintiff's copyright on its strips. I would only reserve liberty to the plaintiff to apply for an injunction against infringement of copyright, if necessary. Ad-interim order in terms of prayer (a). This order is stayed upto 13.1.2012. The defendant shall however disclose on oath particulars of its existing stock of products bearing the impugned mark and the sales thereof till 13.1.2012. The affidavit shall be filed by 31.1.2012.