Judgment :- I.P. MUKERJI, J. A suit has been filed complaining of infringement of trade mark or name. This interlocutory application has been made in aid of the above suit. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of the english trade mark or name Sriniketan SHOPPERS’ PLEASURE and also the bengali trade mark or name Sriniketan Kenakatar Anandaniketan. They allege that the defendant by using the trade mark or name Sriniketan Kenakatar Ananda Mela in english and Durgapur Sriniketan Kenakatar Ananda Mela in bengali are infringing their mark or name. Since 1962 one Nityananda Aich carried on business as ‘Sriniketan Proprietors’. He had no partners and operated by himself from Sodepur, West Bengal. The plaintiff says that Nityananda Aich carried on business as ‘retail and general merchant’. In 1991, he promoted a private limited company. He named it Sriniketan Fashions Private Limited. On 14th October, 2004 M/s. Saha & Roy Advocates were engaged by Nityananda Aich to write to the defendant. They alleged that the defendant was infringing their above bengali trade mark. The defendant wrote back on 26th October, 2004 through an advocate saying that the word ‘Sriniketan’ is a place associated with Rabindra Nath Tagore and that the defendant was not infringing the plaintiff’s mark. In April 2005 this company took over the business of Sriniketan Proprietors. After April 2005 the business of the plaintiff started growing. It was engaged in retailing textile, textile goods, garments, foot wear, headgear and also selling food and drink and other services from four shops across West Bengal. They were situated in Sodepur, Barasat in 24 Parganas (N), Hiland Park in Kolkata and at 124B, Bidhan Sarani, Shyambazaar, Kolkata – 700 004. On 25th September, 2006 the plaintiff applied before the Trade Marks Registry for registration of the english trade mark or name. On the same day the plaintiff applied for registration of the bengali trade mark or name. On 15th March, 2008, the Registrar of trade mark issued a certificate that the English trade mark or name had been registered in the name of the plaintiff. On 17th/18th March, 2008, the Registrar of trade mark issued a certificate that the bengali trade mark or name had been registered in the name of the plaintiff. It appears that on and after 2004 the plaintiff had taken no steps against the defendant complaining of infringement of their trade mark or name. On 17th/18th March, 2008, the Registrar of trade mark issued a certificate that the bengali trade mark or name had been registered in the name of the plaintiff. It appears that on and after 2004 the plaintiff had taken no steps against the defendant complaining of infringement of their trade mark or name. On November 2011 their advocates M/s. Fox and Mandal wrote to the defendant to cease and desist from using the trade names/marks in bengali or in english. The plaintiff also took out criminal cases against the defendant. Sometime in January 2012 this suit was filed. This application was moved on 6th January, 2012. I observed prima facie that the defendant’s name and mark Sriniketan both in english and bengali were substantially similar to the plaintiff’ Section name and mark. I passed an order of injunction in terms of the prayer (c) on the same day. At that point of time it seemed to me that the parties were conciliatory. It appeared that the defendant had realised that they were infringing the plaintiff’ Section registered mark or name and wanted to find a way out of this infringement. I gave time to the parties to settle the dispute by staying the operation of the order of injunction for a specific time. Time without number the interim order was extended and accommodation was taken from the Court but the parties could not arrive at a consensus. Therefore, the application was heard out on merits. According to the defendant they are doing business in Durgapur and nowhere else from September 2004. On 21st September, 2004 the Durgapur Municipal Corporation had issued a certificate of enlistment in favour of Durgapur Sriniketan. Since the plaintiff did not pursue the matter after receiving the reply from the defendant’s Advocate-on-Record by their letter dated 26th October, 2004, the plaintiff is deemed to have waived their rights if any with regard to the infringement. The mark or name of the defendant according to them, is substantially different from the plaintiff’s. The style of writing “Sriniketan” is not identical. “Shoppers’ Pleasure” is written beneath the plaintiff’s english trade mark/name whereas ‘Kenakatar Ananda mela’ is written beneath the defendant’s trade mark/name. Hence there can be no infringement. The bengali version is also written differently. The style of writing of the plaintiff is different from that of the defendant. “Shoppers’ Pleasure” is written beneath the plaintiff’s english trade mark/name whereas ‘Kenakatar Ananda mela’ is written beneath the defendant’s trade mark/name. Hence there can be no infringement. The bengali version is also written differently. The style of writing of the plaintiff is different from that of the defendant. Beneath the plaintiff’s mark there are two words “Kenakatar Anandaniketan” where as beneath the defendant’s mark there are three words namely, “Kenakatar Ananda Mela”. Moreover, the Bengali version qualifies “Sriniketan”, as “Durgapur Sriniketan”. DISCUSSION, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: Let me first examine the plaintiff’s mark in english and compare it with the defendant’s mark. The writing “Sriniketan” forms a substantial part of the mark and is its dominant part. The style of writing “Sriniketan” used by the defendant is substantially similar to the plaintiff’s style. The distinguishing feature of the two marks is that below the plaintiff’s trade mark one finds the words “Shoppers’ Pleasure” whereas beneath the defendant’s trade mark one finds the phrase “Kenakatar Ananda Mela”. The bengali writings are also similar. Below the plaintiff’s trade mark is stated “Kenakatar Ananadaniketan” whereas in the defendant’s trade mark the words “kenakatar Ananda Mela” are inserted below “Sriniketan”. Beside “Sriniketan” and to its left “Durgapur” is inserted. It is laid down in very clear terms in the case of S. M. Dyechem Ltd. vs. Cadbury (India) Ltd. reported in 2000 (5) SCC 573 that the essential features of a mark have to be understood. If on consideration of the essential characteristics of both the marks it is found that the allegedly infringing mark is essentially the same as or resembles the plaintiff’s mark and is likely to deceive people so as to make them believe that the product represented by the defendant’s mark belongs to the plaintiff, then the Court will prevent the defendant from using the mark. But if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient dissimilarity between the marks so as to make their essential characteristics dissimilar, then no case of infringement is made out. But if the Court comes to the conclusion that there is sufficient dissimilarity between the marks so as to make their essential characteristics dissimilar, then no case of infringement is made out. The Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2001(5) SCC 73 inter alia relied on the case of Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories reported in AIR 1965 SC 980 .They reiterate the principle that while testing two marks, the degree of resemblance of one with the other has to be ascertained and also whether such similarity is likely to cause deception. I have examined that the essential characteristic of the marks or names both in english and bengali is “Sriniketan”. In my prima facie opinion the defendant’Section mark or name “Sriniketan” is similar to the plaintiff’s mark or name “Sriniketan”. Similarly the defendant’s bengali mark or name “Sriniketan” is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark or name “Sriniketan”. I do not think that the differences as noted above make any difference in the position because a customer is likely to be influenced by the dominant part of the mark which is “Sriniketan”. Thus they are likely to be deceived so as to believe the defendant’Section goods to represent the plaintiff’s goods. It does not matter whether there is a small writing of the word “Durgapur” to the left of “Sriniketan” in the Bengali version or “Kenakatar Ananda Mela” in lieu of “Kenakatar Anandaniketan” in the said version or “Kenakatar Ananda Mela” in lieu of ‘Shoppers’ Pleasure’ in the english version. The overall impression is formed by the dominant word ‘Sriniketan’, as discussed above. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. reported in 2001 (5) SCC 73 (Supra) that registration of a mark is enough to confer the necessary right upon the plaintiff to exert its right over the subject trade mark. The Supreme Court has also made it absolutely explicit in the case of Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 90 that delay will be no ground to refuse an order of injunction. It is true that after the 2004 notice the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff did not take any steps till 2011. vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 90 that delay will be no ground to refuse an order of injunction. It is true that after the 2004 notice the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff did not take any steps till 2011. Once the plaintiff is the registered owner of the trade mark and there is deceptive similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the defendant’s mark as noted above, an order of injunction should necessarily follow, irrespective of delay. That the Court has no option but to grant an order of injunction is also stated by our Division Bench in the case of Amar Nath Chakroborty vs. Dutta Bucket Industries & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) CHN 278 . In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 90 , Shri Gopal Engg. & Chemical Works vs. M/s. Pomx Laboratory reported in AIR 1992 DELHI 302 and Chandra Bhan Dembla Trading, Delhi vs. Bharat Sewing Machine Co., Bikaner reported in AIR 1982 DELHI 230 cited on behalf of the defendant will have no application. In those cases the delay or the conduct of the plaintiff does influence the Court in granting or refusing an injunction. All the above observations and findings are prima facie. Therefore, I allow this application by passing orders in terms of prayers (a) and (f) of the Notice of Motion. Mr. Rajiv Lall, Advoate, 4 Kiran Sankar Roy Road Kolkata – 700 001 and Mr. Jibanhari Mullick, Advocate, Bar Association are appointed Joint Receivers to implement prayer (f) in case the defendant fails to carry out the order in prayer (f) within two weeks of issuance of a copy of this order. They will be paid an initial remuneration of Rs.15,000/- each by the plaintiff. No order as to costs. The prayer for accounts may be urged in the suit. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities. (I.P. MUKERJI, J.) Later: Mr. Mitra prays for stay of operation of this order. But since two weeks after issuance of a copy of the order is granted to the defendant to comply with this order, I refuse the prayer for stay. (I.P. MUKERJI, J.) Later: Mr. Mitra prays for stay of operation of this order. But since two weeks after issuance of a copy of the order is granted to the defendant to comply with this order, I refuse the prayer for stay. The defendant has enough opportunity to approach the Hon’ble Appeal Court for stay of this order. Let a signed copy of the operative part of the judgment and order be issued to the parties as expeditiously as possible.