JUDGMENT M. Sundar, J. There is a sole plaintiff and there is a lone defendant in the instant suit. 2. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit was determined on 20.09.2018 and the proceedings read as follows: "Ms.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel on record for sole plaintiff is before this Commercial Division. 2. There is a sole defendant and the sole defendant has been duly served with suit summons on 22.06.2018, as per the cause list that has been placed before me. Name of the sole defendant is shown in the cause list, but none appears. 3. Therefore, I proceed to hear learned counsel for plaintiff on jurisdiction of this Commercial Division. 4. Learned counsel for plaintiff points out that this suit pertains to a complaint of infringement of plaintiff's trademark by the defendant. It is also pointed out that the trademark is registered and the mark is 'Medineuron' pertaining to pharmaceutical product. It is submitted that besides infringement, there is a complaint of passing off also. 5. In the light of the aforesaid scope of the plaint, Sub-Section (1) of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, is attracted and therefore this Commercial Division will have jurisdiction to entertain this suit under first proviso to section 7 of 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015,' ('said Act' for brevity) is her say. 6. I have perused the plaint and I have no difficulty in accepting the submission. 7. Jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit thus determined. 8. Having determined jurisdiction, I now turn to stage to the suit. 9. As mentioned supra, sole defendant has been duly served with suit summons on 22.06.2018 and the sole defendant has not chosen to come before this Commercial Division, though the name of the sole defendant is shown in the cause list. 10. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for plaintiff that no written statement has been filed either. 11. List this matter in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD' on 27.09.2018. 12. While so listing on 27.09.2018, Registry shall show the name and full/Complete address of the sole defendant as in the short and long cause titles of the plaint. 13. List this matter on 27.09.2018 in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD'." 3. A perusal of aforesaid proceedings would reveal that besides determination of jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit, trajectory of this suit has also been captured therein. 4. 13. List this matter on 27.09.2018 in the 'UNDEFENDED BOARD'." 3. A perusal of aforesaid proceedings would reveal that besides determination of jurisdiction of this Commercial Division qua this suit, trajectory of this suit has also been captured therein. 4. This suit was set down for recording exparte evidence before learned Additional Master-III and exparte evidence was recorded on 05.10.2018. 5. One G.Shanmugasundaram, who is described as Liaison Manager in the plaintiff's company, has deposed as P.W.1. 6. Twelve documents i.e., Exs.P1 to P12 were marked and an enumeration of the same is as follows: "Ex.P1 is the original board resolution dated 05/10/2018 authorising me to give evidence in this suit. Ex.P2 is the original carton and strip of the plaintiff's product. Ex.P3 is the true copy of the firm registration certificate "Madras Medical Company". Ex.P4 is the true copy of the certificate of incorporation MMC Healthcare Limited and copy of the certificate of Incorporation and Memorandum of Association of MMC Pharmaceutical Limited. (marked after comparing and verifying with the original). Ex.P5 is the photocopy of the legal use certificate of plaintiff's trademark "Medineuron Tablets". (marked after comparing and verifying with the original). Ex.P6 is the copy of the TM-16 dated 08.07.1999 to record the MMC Healthcare Limited (Plaintiff's predecessor) as proprietor of the trademark. Ex.P7 is the deed of assignment of trademark Medineuron from MMC Healthcare Limited to MMC Pharmaceutic Limited. (marked after comparing and verifying with the original). Ex.P8 is the copy of the TM-P recording the subsequent change of proprietorship in the trademark Medineuron. Ex.P9 is the true copy of the product brochures of the plaintiff's. Ex.P10 is the true copy and computer printout of the sales invoices of the plaintiff's product under the trademark Medineuron. Ex.P11 is the photocopy of the defendant's product strip Medineuron. Ex.P12 is the true copy of the manufacturing license given to the plaintiff's predecessor." 7. Ms.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel for plaintiff on record before me, submits that nucleus of this lis is a registered trade mark being trade mark No.610690. This trade mark has been registered in class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. Date of registration is 29.10.1993 vide Certificate No.257755, dated 31.03.2003. Legal Use Certificate ('L.U.C.' for brevity) has been marked as Ex.P5 and according to L.U.C., trade mark type is word and word mark is 'Medineuron Tablets'. This trade mark has been registered in class 5 for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. Date of registration is 29.10.1993 vide Certificate No.257755, dated 31.03.2003. Legal Use Certificate ('L.U.C.' for brevity) has been marked as Ex.P5 and according to L.U.C., trade mark type is word and word mark is 'Medineuron Tablets'. The depiction of the mark as in Ex.P5 (L.U.C.) is as follows: 8. The aforesaid registered trade mark shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit T.M.' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 9. A perusal of Ex.P5, reveals that trade mark registration is in the name of 'MMC Healthcare Limited'. 10. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that MMC Healthcare Limited is the predecessor owner qua suit T.M. and learned counsel submits that suit T.M. has been assigned to the plaintiff vide a Deed of Assignment dated 15.06.2017 and the same has been marked as Ex.P7. A perusal of Ex.P7 reveals that suit T.M. is one of the several trade marks that have been assigned by the aforesaid predecessor to the plaintiff. 11. Learned counsel submits that appropriate applications for recording the change of proprietorship qua suit T.M. has been filed in the trade mark registry and the same is being processed. This application has been placed before the Court and marked as Ex.P8. To be noted, the same is dated 06.07.2017. 12. The details of suit T.M. as well as assignment of suit T.M. in the aforesaid manner have been articulated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint and the same read as follows: "10. In order to obtain the statutory rights the plaintiff's predecessor Madras Medical Company applied for registration of Trade mark "MEDINEURON" under 610690 in class 5 on 29.10.1993 claiming user since 10.06.1989. In the mean time the firm Madras Medical Company was converted into MMC Healthcare Limited on 28.02.1996. On 14.05.1996 the plaintiff has filed TM-16 for the mark "MEDINEURON" to be amended as "MEDINEURON TABLETS" and the same was taken on record. A TM-16 was filed on 08.07.1999 seeking to record the MMC Healthcare Limited as proprietor of the mark. The TM-16 was allowed on 17.12.1999. The plaintiff's Trade Mark MEDINEURON was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No.1231-0 dated 16.09.2000 disclaiming the word TABLETS No one has opposed the Trade Mark MEDINEURON and the mark got registered in favour of plaintiff company. The TM-16 was allowed on 17.12.1999. The plaintiff's Trade Mark MEDINEURON was advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No.1231-0 dated 16.09.2000 disclaiming the word TABLETS No one has opposed the Trade Mark MEDINEURON and the mark got registered in favour of plaintiff company. The registration is renewed from time to time and the mark is valid and subsisting. 11. The MMC Healthcare Limited assigned the Trademark along with goodwill in respect of goods in the name of MMC Pharmaceuticals Ltd and the date of the Deed of Assignment is 15.06.2017. The forms for recording subsequent proprietorship have been filed before the Trademark Registry Chennai. The copies of the same are filled herewith." 13. It is submitted that plaintiff developed the aforesaid pharmaceutical preparation in the year 1989 and that by dint of hard work, sales turn over has increased over a period of time. Details of sales turn over for various financial years have been given in a tabular form statement in the plaint and the same reads as follows: Year Sales(Rs. In lakhs) 2007-2008 272.28 2008-2009 290.71 2009-2010 319.38 2010-2011 281.89 2011-2012 343.47 2012-2013 191.06 2013-2014 138.15 2014-2015 286.49 2015-2016 300.42 2016-2017 285.12 14. It is the case of plaintiff that they came to know about the defendant using virtually the same mark i.e., suit T.M. for identical products and immediately on gaining knowledge about the same in August 2017, instant suit was presented in this Court in September 2017. It was presented on 18.09.2017 to be precise. Post service of suit summons, defendant did not choose to enter appearance and trajectory of the instant suit thereafter, has been set out supra. 15. Depiction of suit T.M. on the products of plaintiff has been marked as Ex.P2 and the same is as follows: 16. The alleged offending mark of the defendant has been marked as Ex.P11 and the same is as follows: 17. I compared the two marks. To be noted, products are same and trade name is same. I am informed that pharmaceutical combination is also the same. Both products are sold in blister packs. 18. I have compared the two marks by applying the Parle principle (Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. and Co., (1972) 1 SCC 618 ). In other words, after seeing the plaintiff's mark, I took it away from the sweep of my eyes. I am informed that pharmaceutical combination is also the same. Both products are sold in blister packs. 18. I have compared the two marks by applying the Parle principle (Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. and Co., (1972) 1 SCC 618 ). In other words, after seeing the plaintiff's mark, I took it away from the sweep of my eyes. Little later, I saw the defendant's mark alone and asked myself the question as to whether a man of average intelligence with imperfect recollection and ordinary prudence will be lulled into the belief that what he is seeing now is what he had seen earlier. To my mind, the answer is monosyllabic and it is an emphatic 'YES'. To my mind, the monosyllabic answer needs no qualification and admits of no exception. 19. It is relevant to extract paragraph 9 of the aforesaid Parle judgment, which reads as follows: '9. It is, therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. In this case we find that the packets are practically of the same size, the colour scheme of the two wrappers is almost the same; the design on both though not identical bears such a close resemblance that one can easily be mistaken for the other. The essential features of both are that there is a girl with one arm raised and carrying something in the other with a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the foreground. In the background there is a farm house with a fence. The word "Gluco Biscuits" in one and "Glucose Biscuits" on the other occupy a prominent place at the top with a good deal of similarity between the two writings. In the background there is a farm house with a fence. The word "Gluco Biscuits" in one and "Glucose Biscuits" on the other occupy a prominent place at the top with a good deal of similarity between the two writings. Anyone in our opinion who has a look at one of the packets today may easily mistake the other if shown on another day as being the same article which he had seen before. If one was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs' goods, he might easily mistake the defendants' wrapper for the plaintiffs' if shown to him some time after he had seen the plaintiffs'. After all, an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of a Sherlock Homes. We have therefore no doubt that the defendants' wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' which was registered. We do not think it necessary to refer to the decisions referred to at the bar as in our view each case will have to be judged on its own features and it would be of no use to note on how many points there was similarity and in how many others there was absence of it.' 20. To be noted, Parle judgment has been subsequently referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Dyechen Vs. Cadbury (India), (2000) 5 SCC 573 . 21. I now turn to prayer paragraph in the plaint. To be noted, Parle judgment has been subsequently referred to with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Dyechen Vs. Cadbury (India), (2000) 5 SCC 573 . 21. I now turn to prayer paragraph in the plaint. Prayer paragraph in the plaint is paragraph No.24 and the same reads as follows: "(a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining by an order of perpetual injunction, the defendant, its Directors, their employees, agents, stock lists, dealers or others directly or indirectly involved, from in any manner infringing and using in relation to any medicinal or pharmaceutical preparation, in manufacturing or marketing the pharmaceutical product bearing the Trademark MEDINEURON or any other Trademark which is deceptively and visually or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark MEDINEURON under No.610690 in class 05; (b) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, men or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, offering or advertising for sale any pharmaceutical preparation using the Trade Mark MEDINEURON or any other name which is in any way phonetically or deceptively and visually similar to the plaintiff Trade Mark MEDINEURON and pass off their pharmaceutical preparation MEDINEURON as the pharmaceutical preparation of the plaintiff or enable others to pass off in any manner; (c) direct and decree the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff all the goods, dies, labels, wrappers, packages, cartons, boxes, articles, literature and all other materials bearing reference whatsoever with respect to the offending Trademark MEDINEURON for destruction without compensation; (d) The defendant be ordered and directed to render true and faithful accounts of the profits illegally earned by the defendant by using the deceptively and visually similar and confusing trade name MEDINEURON and a decree for the said amount be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant; (e) directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the costs to the suit;" 22. A perusal of prayer paragraph (extracted and reproduced supra) reveals that there are six limbs. While first and second limbs pertain to injunctive reliefs qua complaints of infringement qua suit T.M. and passing off, third and fourth limbs pertain to delivery of materials and accounts respectively. Fifth limb is for costs and sixth limb is usual residuary limb. 23. I now perused the deposition of P.W.1. Perusal of deposition reveals that it is cogent and synchronised with pleadings in the plaint. 24. Fifth limb is for costs and sixth limb is usual residuary limb. 23. I now perused the deposition of P.W.1. Perusal of deposition reveals that it is cogent and synchronised with pleadings in the plaint. 24. I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that plaintiff has proved its claim. 25. Plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for. Considering the fact that suit has been filed/presented in this Court on 18.09.2017 and considering the further fact that plaintiff has been constrained to carry the suit to its logical end by pursuing it for over a year, I deem it appropriate to decree the suit with costs and also impose compensatory costs of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) under Section 35A of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015'. 26. Suit is decreed with costs and compensatory costs in the aforesaid manner.