JUDGMENT : This appeal had been filed against the dismissal of OS.No.43 of 1998, by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, by judgment, dated 21.12.2001. 2. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff had filed the said suit, seeking an order of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from printing, manufacturing and selling match boxes containing the infringing trade marks label, which are deceptively similar having colourable imitation of the plaintiff's registered trade mark label and for further directions requiring the defendants to render a true and proper accounts of the sales of their match boxes by using the impugned label and for damages of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and for direction to produce all unused infringing labels as well as the blocks and dyes used by them for printing, the infringing labels in their custody for the purpose of destruction and for costs of the Suit. 3. It is the case of the plaintiff that they are a private Limited Company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1951, having its Registered Office at No.74, Main Road, Kovilpatti. The plaintiff is engaged in manufacturing and selling of safety match boxes from 1951 and has got a good reputation all of over India. The plaintiff had invented a label and affixed them on top of each and every match box manufactured by them. The label was also approved by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, by order dated 03.12.1951. The label contains the picture of a man with a whip in his hand ploughing with the help of two bulls. On the left side top corner of the said label, the word 'kisan' and on the right side, the same word is written in Hindi. The label is also registered in the name of the plaintiff before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay in clause 34 of the Trade and Mercantile Act, 1958, on 08.02.1960 with Registration No.194390. It had been stated that the trade mark has been associated with the plaintiff and the consumers associated the said Trade Mark with the match boxes produced and sold by the plaintiff. The total sales of the plaintiff's match boxes has been increasing year by year. The plaintiff has considerable goodwill in the market. It had been stated that the trade mark has been associated with the plaintiff and the consumers associated the said Trade Mark with the match boxes produced and sold by the plaintiff. The total sales of the plaintiff's match boxes has been increasing year by year. The plaintiff has considerable goodwill in the market. The second defendant was doing business in trading safety matches, supplying raw materials to various match factory owners and as well as match boxes in the open market. The second defendant had used the word 'KRISEE' written in English and Bail Gadi in Hindi. This was objected to by the plaintiff and the second defendant had agreed by document dated 05.04.1997 not to continue his business with the said trade mark. The first defendant was running a match factory under the name and style of 'Kathiresh Match Works' at Kandiapuram Village, Sattur Taluk. The plaintiff came to know that the second defendant had again started manufacturing safety matches through the first defendant with label containing the picture of a man sitting in a cart, with a whip in his hand and driven by one bull. It had been stated that the said label is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. 4. It has been further stated that the purchaser of match boxes or an ordinary consumer will not be able to distinguish the two trade marks. The plaintiff's match boxes are sold all over India, especially in Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamilnadu. The plaintiff has spent huge amount for advertisement. The label of the defendants is not registered. The plaintiff had issued notices dated 22.05.1998, to the second defendant and dated 27.05.1998, to the first defendant. The second defendant had issued a reply dated 03.06.1998 containing false allegations. It had been stated by the second defendant that the document executed on 05.04.1997, by him was obtained by force. It had been stated that the defendants are continuing to manufacture and sell match boxes with labels deceptively similar to the label of the plaintiff and consequently, the suit has been filed seeking the relief as mentioned earlier. 5. By way of amendment, the plaintiff had impleaded the third defendant as a party to the suit, so that any order passed by this Court may also be binding on the third defendant. 5. By way of amendment, the plaintiff had impleaded the third defendant as a party to the suit, so that any order passed by this Court may also be binding on the third defendant. The third defendant is the proprietor of 'Ashok Match Works' at Sattur, Virudhunagar District. 6. The first defendant had filed a written statement, denying allegations made in the plaint. It has been stated by the first defendant that the labels in the match boxes manufactured by them are distinguishable and different from the labels affixed by the plaintiff. The first defendant had denied any business relationship with the second defendant. The first defendant had also disclaimed knowledge of the document dated 05.04.1997 said to have been executed by the second defendant. It had been stated that the first defendant had obtained assignment of the single bull cart label from 'Ashok Match Works' with proprietor Alagarraj on 03.04.1998. Thereafter, on the basis of said assignment, the first defendant was manufacturing safety match boxes, which were not similar to that of the plaintiff's label. The first defendant had denied that the plaintiff was put to loss of business because of the usage by the first defendant of the label in his match boxes. The first defendant claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 7. The second defendant had also filed a written statement, denying all the allegations made in the plaint. The second defendant had denied that the plaintiff had registered their label in the name of 'KISAN' under Trade Mark Act. It had been further denied that the said mark 'Kisan' was associated with the plaintiff. The second defendant claimed to be a manufacturer of matches and supplier of raw materials to cottage match units and marketed them in the name and style of 'BAIL GADI'. It had been stated that the picture is totally different from that of the plaintiff. The second defendant specifically denied that he had executed any deed of promise on 05.04.1997. It had been stated that he comes from North India and taking advantage of his loneliness, the plaintiff forcefully got his signatures in a typed paper. The second defendant claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 8. The parties went to trial on the basis of their respective rival pleadings. The learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur had framed six issues for consideration, namely, 1. The second defendant claimed that the suit should be dismissed. 8. The parties went to trial on the basis of their respective rival pleadings. The learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur had framed six issues for consideration, namely, 1. Whether the Managing Director had authority to institute the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff's Company was incorporated? 3. Whether the consumers or purchasers of match boxes would know difference between the plaintiff's match box and the defendants' Match box? 4. Whether the second defendant had executed document dated 05.04.1997? 5. Whether the label of the plaintiff's match box is similar to the label of the defendants' match box label? 6. To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled? 9. Among the above issues, this Court is primarily concerned with determining as to whether there is a similarity in the labels of the plaintiff and the defendants' match box. But, even before deciding the said aspect, this Court has to determine, whether the very trade mark with a picture of a man with bulls has any connection with the product, namely the match box or is an arbitrary choice of a label. The determination of this would further necessitate lead this court to discuss, whether there should be minute comparison between the plaintiff's registered trade mark and the defendants' label. 10. During trial, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and also marked thirteen documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.13. The documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff included the certificate of incorporation of the plaintiff's Company as Ex.A.1; plaintiff's company resolution, dated 22.07.1998 as Ex.A.2; Order of the Madurai Central Excise Sub Collector, dated 03.12.1951, as Ex.A.3; proforma of the label of the plaintiff as Ex.A.4; the Registration Certificate of the said label as Ex.A.5; Undertaking written by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff, dated 05.04.1997 as Ex.A.6; Proforma of the defendants label as Ex.A.7; the notice issued to the second defendant along with acknowledgment as Ex.A.8 and Ex.A.9; the notice issued to the first defendant as Ex.A.10; the reply received from the counsel for the second defendant as Ex.A.11; Order of the Kovilpatty Central Excise Superintendent, dated 29.03.1984 as Ex.A.12 and bunch of label of the defendants as Ex.A.13. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as DW1 and also marked four documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as DW1 and also marked four documents as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4. These included the permission granted by the Sattur Central Excise, dated 03.04.1998 as Ex.B.1; proforma of the defendants labels as Ex.B.2; the bunch of defendants label as Ex.B.3 and another set of labels of the defendants as Ex.B.4. 11. On considering all the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Judge had dismissed the suit. The learned Principal District Judge had primarily relied on a comparison of two labels by placing them side by side and pointed out differences in both the labels and therefore, came to the conclusion that the label adopted by the defendants was totally different to that of the appellant and consequently, further held that the label of the defendants did not cause any confusion in the minds of the purchaser and finally held that the plaintiff was not put to any loss by the usage of his label by the defendants. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the label of the appellant of a person with a whip indicating a farmer with two bulls has nothing to do with the product which is being manufactured namely match box or match sticks. This image of a farmer of a bull in a village setting is an arbitrary choice. It has no connection with a match box. The appellant has conceived an image and has got it registered and has been using it from the year 1951. The Registration Certificate of the label of the appellant had been produced as a document as Ex.A.5. This naturally gives protection to the appellant to use the said label and further gives the appellant cause to institute a legal suit to protect its registered trade mark against infringement. Such infringement need not be a exact copy of the appellant's trade mark. The infringement can also be a copy of the concept or idea of the trade mark adopted by the appellant. The appellant herein has conceived a unique idea of a farmer with two bulls and has registered the same. After registering the same, the appellant has been using it in relation to an entirely different product and unrelated product, safety matches and match box. The appellant herein has conceived a unique idea of a farmer with two bulls and has registered the same. After registering the same, the appellant has been using it in relation to an entirely different product and unrelated product, safety matches and match box. By such continuous usage of the trade mark, the appellant has acquired a good will in the market. When a common man sees this trade mark of a farmer with two bulls, he relates to the same product, match box and match stick. The said product does not relate to any farming activity. However, by continuous usage the plaintiff has built up a market wherein the common people related the image of the bull with two carts directly to the match box manufactured by the appellant. This effort of the appellant has to be protected. 13. The respondents have also been using the image of a farmer sitting on a cart in a village background. The cart has been drawn by a single bull. 14. The learned Principal District Judge had diverted his attention to compare both the images. There are differences. There are two bulls in the appellant's label. There is only one bull in the respondents’ label. However, in both there is an image of a farmer with a whip in his hand. There is a difference after this as a farmer is ploughing the bull in the appellant’s label, whereas in the respondents' label, the farmer is sitting on a cart. Pointing out these differences, the learned Principal District Judge had stated that the two images will not cause confusion in the minds of the people. With much great respect to the learned Principal District Judge, I disagree. A trade mark involves picturisation of a particular label and such picturisation normally is very closely related to the product. There are examples in any health drink or a food product and the label has a direct connection between the product and the mark. There is a connection between the product and the label. In such cases, if a competitor adopts a similar label, a claim can be taken that the said label is related to the very same product and therefore, the courts have adopted the procedure of comparing the two labels to find out the similarities and dissimilarities. 15. There is a connection between the product and the label. In such cases, if a competitor adopts a similar label, a claim can be taken that the said label is related to the very same product and therefore, the courts have adopted the procedure of comparing the two labels to find out the similarities and dissimilarities. 15. The learning Principal District Judge had relied on such judgments particularly, reported in 1997(3)-CTC-531 M/s.Seyade Beedi Company, rep. by its Partner T.E.S.Naina Mohammed/Vs/M/s.Jeyaganesh Beedi Company, rep. by its Proprietor A.Ayyathurai, wherein on the cover of the product namely Beedis, in one there was a photo of a Muslim gentleman with a cap and in the other there was a photo of a young Muslim boy with a cap. The primary aspect in that judgment was the photo appears over the image of the Beedi, which is actually the product which is being manufactured. There was a direct connection between the image and the product. 16. Similarly, in a judgment reported in 1995(2)-MLJ-654 Jothi Chemicals and Detergents/Vs/Jyothy Laboratories, this court had held that the plaintiff should establish goodwill and reputation before seeking an order of injunction. In the present case, the appellant has been using the trade mark from the year 1951 and thereafter, even the Central Excise Sub Collector, Madurai has passed an order confirming the label used by the appellant as its trade mark. The present case is very unique in the sense that we are dealing with a trade mark which has no connection with the product. The appellant has registered his trade mark. The respondents have not registered their trade mark. The appellant has registered a trade mark with a concept or an idea and that idea has been adopted by the respondents in their match box. They could have chosen anything in the world. They should not try to imitate the picture resembling that of the appellant. It is very unnatural that when a person purchases a match box he would compare them and then, prefer one against other. The rough image of a farmer and of a bull alone will be impressed in the mind of the common consumer. When those two images are present in the mind of the consumer, I hold that it is highly inappropriate and improper on the part of the respondents to have adopted a similar image, no doubt, on a different setting. The rough image of a farmer and of a bull alone will be impressed in the mind of the common consumer. When those two images are present in the mind of the consumer, I hold that it is highly inappropriate and improper on the part of the respondents to have adopted a similar image, no doubt, on a different setting. However, the concept as a whole has been copied. The trade mark of the appellant has to be protected when it compared and viewed from that angle. I hold that the protection of registration cannot be narrowed down to protect only the design and colour of the trade mark but it should be extended to protect the concept or the idea behind such an image. When viewed from that angle, I hold that the image of the appellant has been copied by the respondents. When the respondents have commenced the business to manufacture the match box, they could have conceived a different image and then built reputation. On the other hand, they had adopted the concept created by the appellant and they have been attempting to trample on the goodwill created by the appellant. This has to be prevented by the Court and from that angle, I differ from the reasons given by the learned Principal District Judge and I would reverse the judgment and consequently allow the appeal. 17. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the reasoning given in the judgment of the trial Court are erroneous and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 18. In the result, this Appeal Suit is allowed in part with costs with respect to prayer (a). The reliefs with respect to prayer (b), (c) and (d) are negatived, since there is inadequate evidence. The judgment and decree, dismissing O.S.No.43 of 1998 dated 21.12.2001 by the learned Principal District Judge, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, is set aside and the suit in O.S.No.43 of 1998 is decreed with costs respect to prayer (a) alone and is dismissed with respect to the reliefs (b), (c) and (d).