JUDGMENT S.J. Kathawalla, J. - The Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the Defendants for infringement of trade mark and passing off. By a separate order passed today, the petition filed by the Plaintiff seeking leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent has been allowed. The Plaintiff is seeking ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion. 2. Mr. Kamod submits that the notice of this application along with suit papers as well as the petition under clause XIV of the Letters Patent have been served upon the Defendants on 24 October 2018. An affidavit of service dated 25 October 2018 proving the service of documents has been tendered in the Court and taken on record. It is stated in the Affidavit that papers have been served upon all the Defendants at the address of the Defendants in Pune. None appears on behalf of the Defendants despite service. 3. It is stated that Plaintiff No. 1 is a well-known and reputed fitness trainer and dance exercise instructor and is carrying on business of rendering services which include running fitness centres, gymnasiums, conducting group classes, teaching aqua aerobics, having pilates studios, conducting physical education, personal training, giving lectures and conducting workshops on diet, health and fitness-related matters under the trade mark ''BODY ART'' since 1992. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 2 was incorporated inter-alia by Plaintiff No. 1 and her family members and is a family owned company of Plaintiff No. 1. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 2 also carries on the business of Plaintiff No. 1 under the mark BODY ART as her licensee. 4. My attention is drawn to the plaint and the Exhibits therein. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the word mark BODY ART bearing registration No. 2409180 in class 41. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 is also the registered proprietor of the trade mark label BODY ART of which the most leading, prominent and essential feature is the expression BODY ART in class 41 bearing registration no. 1304360 in respect of inter alia physical education and health club services. My attention is drawn to Exhibit A-1 and A to the plaint being the registration certificate for the word mark and a certificate for use in legal proceedings in respect of the label mark. I have perused the same. 1304360 in respect of inter alia physical education and health club services. My attention is drawn to Exhibit A-1 and A to the plaint being the registration certificate for the word mark and a certificate for use in legal proceedings in respect of the label mark. I have perused the same. 5. Mr. Kamod submitted that the trade mark BODY ART has been continuously, extensively and uninterruptedly used since the year 1992 and the services rendered by the Plaintiffs under the said mark have acquired tremendous reputation amongst the general public. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have catered to over 10,000 clients / customers since 1992. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have generated considerable revenues from the services rendered under the trade mark BODY ART. My attention is drawn to paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint, which set out the approximate gross revenues figures of the services rendered by Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 under the trade mark BODY ART. My attention is also drawn to the Exhibit D to the plaint which are copies of sample invoices issued by the Plaintiffs to the customers with regard to services rendered under the trade mark BODY ART since 1992. 6. It is stated that the services rendered under the mark BODY ART appear in several leading magazines, newspapers, websites and are also listed in various business directories. It is stated that Plaintiff No. 1 has also written several articles related to fitness and healthcare in various publications including Mid day, Mumbai Mirror, Hello Magazine, The Hindu, DNA, Femina, Health & Fitness, Savy, Marwar, Bombay Times, etc. as the proprietor of BODY ART. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 participates in several seminars, conferences and workshops and has received letters of appreciation and recognition with respect to the services rendered by her under the mark BODY ART. It is submitted that Plaintiff No. 1 also owns a website bearing the domain name www.bodyart.in. It is submitted that the trade mark BODY ART has gained enormous reputation and goodwill and the same is exclusively associated with the Plaintiffs. My attention is also drawn to various documents annexed to the Plaint to show the kind of goodwill and reputation that has been acquired by the Plaintiffs in the mark BODY ART. 7. It is submitted that the trade mark BODY ART has gained enormous reputation and goodwill and the same is exclusively associated with the Plaintiffs. My attention is also drawn to various documents annexed to the Plaint to show the kind of goodwill and reputation that has been acquired by the Plaintiffs in the mark BODY ART. 7. It is stated that in or about June 2018, the Plaintiffs first time came to know that the Defendants are running a gymnasium / fitness centre under the trademark BODY ARTS GYM which is identical to the trade mark BODY ART belonging to Plaintiff No. 1 and by using the trading style DESIGN YOUR BODY ART. The same came to the notice of the Plaintiffs in view of the trademark application bearing No. 2604111 in class 41 filed on behalf of Defendant No. 2 which was advertised in the trademarks journal which is annexed at Exhibit L to the Plaint. It is stated that discreet enquiries were thereafter conducted on behalf of the Plaintiffs which revealed that while defendant No. 2 had applied for the mark, Defendant No. 3 was also responsible for the conduct of the business of Defendant No. 1, though the exact nature of the relationship between defendant No. 2 and 3 was not clear. My attention is drawn to Exhibit M being the photograph of the tariff card of the Defendants that was being used at the relevant time. It is submitted that promptly thereafter on 21 June 2018, Plaintiff No. 1 through her Advocates issued a cease and desist notice upon the Defendants calling upon them to discontinue the unauthorized use of the trade mark BODY ART in relation to their gymnasium / fitness centre which Was duly delivered to the Defendants. However, the Defendants neither replied to the said notices nor complied with the same. Upon instructions from the Plaintiff, the Advocates for the Plaintiffs thereafter in or about the first week of August 2018 made Several attempts to reach out to the Defendants and reason with the Defendants not to violate the rights of the Plaintiffs. However, the Defendants refused to comply with the requests and instead changed their mark to NEW BODY ART. My attention is drawn to Exhibit O to the plaint which are photographs of the signages of the Defendants mentioning NEW BODY ART FITNESS CLUB. However, the Defendants refused to comply with the requests and instead changed their mark to NEW BODY ART. My attention is drawn to Exhibit O to the plaint which are photographs of the signages of the Defendants mentioning NEW BODY ART FITNESS CLUB. The attempts to resolve the concerns amicably, therefore, failed, and hence the present suit has been filed. 8. Mr Kamod submitted that the use of the mark NEW BODY ART infringes the rights conferred upon the Plaintiffs pursuant to the registered trademark BODY ART bearing No. 2409180 in class 41 as well as the registration for the BODY ART label bearing no. 1304360 in class 41. 9. Mr. Kamod submitted that the adoption and use of the identical trade mark NEW BODY ART by the Defendants is dishonest and with an intention to trade upon the goodwill and reputation acquired by the Plaintiffs. The mere addition of the word NEW is of no consequence and is dishonest. He submitted that being from the same industry, there is no chance that the Defendants were unaware of the Plaintiffs trade mark BODY ART or the well-known services offered thereunder. He submitted that the Defendants are misrepresenting their services/business as the services/business of the Plaintiffs and/or are misrepresenting that the Defendants or their business or their services are connected with or are associated with the Plaintiffs and the same is causing irreparable harm and injury to the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs. He submitted that the entire endeavour of the Defendants is also to pass off their business as that of the Plaintiffs. He submitted that the use of the mark NEW BODY ART by the Defendants amounts to infringement and passing off. 10. I have heard the submissions in detail and perused the plaint and the documents produced therewith. The Plaintiff No. 1 has secured statutory rights in the trade mark BODY ART and from the documents annexed to the Plaint, it is evident that the same has gained substantial reputation and goodwill. The use of the trade mark BODY ART by the Defendants in respect of the same services undoubtedly violates the rights of the Plaintiffs including the statutory rights secured by Plaintiff No. 1. The use of the trade mark BODY ART by the Defendants cannot be termed as honest. The use of the trade mark BODY ART by the Defendants in respect of the same services undoubtedly violates the rights of the Plaintiffs including the statutory rights secured by Plaintiff No. 1. The use of the trade mark BODY ART by the Defendants cannot be termed as honest. Considering the similarities in the rival trade marks and the nature of rival services, there is a very strong possibility of confusion and deception amongst the general public. The reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs is also likely to suffer by the reasons of misrepresentation sought to be made by the Defendants by using the trade mark BODY ART. Moreover, the Defendants have neither replied to the cease and desist notice issued on behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 (which was received by them) nor remained present today, despite service. There are no equities in favour of the Defendants. 11. According to me, the Plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case. It is necessary to grant protection to the Plaintiffs by way of an ad-interim order. There are no equities in favour of the Defendants. 11. According to me, the Plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case. It is necessary to grant protection to the Plaintiffs by way of an ad-interim order. There shall accordingly be an ad-interim order in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the - Notice of Motion, which read as follows: a. "That pending hearing and disposal of the suit, the Defendants, its partners, its proprietors, its directors, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming through or under them or under their instructions be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon''ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff No. 1''s registered trademarks bearing nos, 2409180 and 1304360 in any manner and from using the said registered trademarks or any essential feature thereof including the mark BODY ART or any mark similar thereto as part of the Defendants'' business name or trading style or trademark upon or in relation to any sign boards, banners, hoardings, signs, invoices, visiting cards, tariff cards, advertisements or such other material and from using in relation to any of the Defendants'' services (including in relation to fitness or health related services through gymnasiums / fitness centres/health destinations or services of imparting physical training, conducting workshops on physical training and / or advising on physical training, fitness and well-being or any allied or cognate services or other similar services inter alia as depicted in the Exhibits hereto) the impugned mark NEW BODY ART or any mark similar thereto and from selling, advertising, offering to sell or rendering any services (including through or using the internet) under or bearing the impugned mark NEW BODY ART or the said registered trademark or any essential feature thereof including the mark BODY ART or any other marks similar thereto; b. That pending hearing and disposal of the suit, the Defendants, its partners, its proprietors, its directors, subordinates, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon''ble Court from passing off the Defendants'' business or services as those of the Plaintiffs in any manner or as being connected or associated with the Plaintiffs in any manner and from using BODY ART as part of the Defendants business name/trading style or trade mark and from selling, dealing, advertising or offering to sell or rendering any services (including fitness or health related services through gymnasiums /fitness centres/ health destinations or services of imparting physical training, conducting workshops on physical training and / or advising on physical training, fitness and well-being or any allied or cognate services or other similar services) under the mark BODY ART and from using in relation to any services or business the mark BODY ART and from using or displaying the mark BODY ART or any mark resembling the BODY ART Trademarks upon or in relation to sign boards, banners, hoardings, signs, invoices, visiting cards, tariff cards, advertisements or such other material or in any other manner (including through or using the internet) which suggests that the Defendants are authorised by the Plaintiffs or that the Defendants are in any way related to, connected or associated with the Plaintiffs" 12. List the above matter under the caption "First on Board" on 30th October 2018. The Defendants are directed to personally remain present before this Court. 13. Liberty to the Defendants to apply for variation of this order with 48 hours prior written notice to the Plaintiff. 14. The Plaintiffs are directed to hand deliver a copy of this order to the Defendants.