JUDGMENT : The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for the following reliefs: (a) to grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, or business name, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the same or similar mark ACHI MASALA or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or deceptively or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark AACHI as shown in Document No.1 or in relation to any masala items and use the same pouches, packets or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark Nos.922594, 922595, 1318494 and 1318495 or in any manner infringe the plaintiffs' registered trade mark ; (b) to direct the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs' all the packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the name ACHI or other deceptively similar trade mark used in the pouches and packets in respect of masalas ; (c) to direct the defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the impugned trade mark ACHI MASALA on the goods referred and decree the suit for the profits found to have been made by the defendant, after the defendant has rendered accounts ; and (d) to direct the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the costs to the suit. 2. The first plaintiff is a Proprietary concern manufacturing and marketing various kinds of masalas and spices. The first plaintiff had applied for the registration of trade mark “AACHI” under Application No.922594 on 04.05.2000 in Clause 29 and Application No.1318495 in Clause 30 and the registration was duly granted. It is also stated that the plaintiffs had applied for registration in various Clauses. According to the plaintiffs, their trade mark “AACHI” has become common household name, as they have now become one of the leading manufacturers of packaged masala powders. It is also stated that the plaintiffs had applied for registration in various Clauses. According to the plaintiffs, their trade mark “AACHI” has become common household name, as they have now become one of the leading manufacturers of packaged masala powders. Therefore, only the plaintiffs are the exclusive owners of the trade mark “AACHI” and any unauthorized use of the same mark or similar trade mark would amount to passing off an infringement. 3. In the year 2000, the defendant had started an advertising and commenced marketing spices under the label similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs. Immediately, the plaintiffs caused a legal notice and the defendant also, in response to the same, subsequently, gave up the business. However, according to the plaintiffs, recently in 2007, the defendant had made an application for the trade mark “ACHI MASALA” under application No.977503 on 15.12.2000 in blatant infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs apprehend that the products of the defendant are likely to be available in all places, wherever the plaintiffs products are also marketed. As the trade mark of the defendant is phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark, the defendant has with a mala fide intention of taking undue advantage of the same, has adopted the same trade mark. The trade marks of both the plaintiffs' and the defendant are phonetically similar and is likely to create confusion in the mind of a common man. The only difference in the spelling is an additional letter “a” in the plaintiffs' trade mark. 4. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that they have started the business using the trade mark “ACHI” with respect to spices and masala powders since 1995, whereas, the defendant is only a recent entrant to the field. The defendant has got no valid reason to use the same trade mark as that of the plaintiffs, which is structurally, phonetically and visually identical, to that of the plaintiffs. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that along with the suit, O.A.No.87 of 2008 was filed for injunction, restraining the use of the trade mark “ACHI MASALA” by the defendant and an order of interim injunction was granted by this Court on 30.01.2008 and the same was made absolute on 27.08.2010. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that along with the suit, O.A.No.87 of 2008 was filed for injunction, restraining the use of the trade mark “ACHI MASALA” by the defendant and an order of interim injunction was granted by this Court on 30.01.2008 and the same was made absolute on 27.08.2010. The defendant was set ex parte on 01.06.2016, despite the fact that he was served as early as on 01.03.2010 of the suit summons. 5. On the side of the plaintiffs, one Mr. B. Gnanasambandam, Senior Manager of the plaintiffs' company was examined as P.W.1. The plaintiffs have marked as many as 15 documents Exhibits P1 to Ex.P15 in support of their case, which are as follows: - Sl. No. Exhibits Description of documents Date 1 P-1 The plaintiffs have authorized PW1 to adduce evidence on their behalf in this suit and the authorization letter given in PW1's favour 2 P-2 The original label of the plaintiffs' trade mark Aachi Masala 3 P-3 The certified copy of the plaintiff's advertisement in RITZ magazine 4 P-4 The photocopy of the registration certificate of the plaintiffs' trade mark under A.No.1318495 along with legal use certificate 5 P-5 The photocopies of the registration certificate of trade mark no.922595 along with legal use certificate (series) 04.05.2000 6 P-6 The photocopy of the registration certificate of trade mark no.922594 04.05.2000 7 P-7 The photocopy of trade mark certificate bearing no.1357284 16.05.2005 8 P-8 The photocopy of the certificate of incorporation of Nazreth Foods Private Limited - 9 P-9 The photocopy of the certificate issued under the Central Sales Tax Rules 1957 - 10 P-10 The photocopy of the license user agreement 01.04.2007 11 P-11 The photocopy of the certificate of registration issued TNGST - 12 P-2 The photocopy of the certificate of registration issued by VAT - 13 P-13 The office copy of cease and desist notice issued 04.12.2000 14 P-14 The copy of the defendant's reply 30.12.2000 15 P-15 The computer downloaded copy of defendants trademark application no. 977503 6. The documents viz., Exs.P4, P5 and P6 are all certificates of registration of the plaintiffs' trade mark and Ex.P7 is a trade mark certificate and Ex.P9 is the certificate issued under the Central Sales Tax Rules 1957. 977503 6. The documents viz., Exs.P4, P5 and P6 are all certificates of registration of the plaintiffs' trade mark and Ex.P7 is a trade mark certificate and Ex.P9 is the certificate issued under the Central Sales Tax Rules 1957. The certificates of registration under TNGST and VAT are also marked as Exs.P11 and P12, in addition to the filing of the suit notice and the reply notice. 7. A perusal of the above documents go to show that the case of the plaintiffs is true and the same is proved. Hence, there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. 8. In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for by the plaintiffs. No costs.