JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Through OMP No. 352 of 2019, the applicant/defendant hence strives, to, seek modification, of, the order pronounced by this Court, on 1.1.2020, upon, OMP Nos. 211 & 323 of 2018, where through, an interim order of injunction, became pronounced by this Court, on 26.5.2018, hence restraining the defendant, from, infringing, the, registered trade mark, as, assigned by the competent authority, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. 2. Visibly, the afore orders, became rendered, by this Court, during the pendency of COMS No. 17 of 2018, (i) and, the legal strife, which emerges, inter-se, the contesting litigants, appertains to, the, registered trade mark, bearing the nomenclature 'North Face', and, has become assigned, to the plaintiff, rather purportedly also becoming used by the defendant, (ii) and, thereupon the apposite infringement arising, (iii) besides, for, ensuring qua the afore trade mark, becoming hence not used by the defendant, or, for, precluding, through, its passing off rather the mind(s) of, the, consumers concerned, hence being beset with confusion, arising from, occurrence, of, similarity(ies), inter-se the afore assigned trade mark, and, vis-a-vis, the trade mark used, by the defendant, hence bearing the nomenclature “North Face Adventure Tours” (iv) besides obviously, for, blunting the abuse thereof, hence the plaintiff claimed rendition of, a, decree, of, mandatory/ prohibitory injunction, against, the defendant, inasmuch as, against, any user, by him, of, the afore assigned trade mark, as become granted qua the plaintiff, by the competent authority, as, constituted, under, the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 3. 3. The defendant, in his written statement, as, became furnished, to the plaint, and, also in the reply meted by him, to the application, cast, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, hence by the plaintiff, during, the pendency, of, the extant COMS, had, rather contended, (a) that, the defendant was the prior user, of, trade mark hence bearing, the, nomenclature 'North Face Adventure Tours', rather, since the year 1994, (b) and, also contended qua the afore assigned qua him trade mark, though, rather became assigned, not by the contemplated competent authority, under, the Trade Marks Act, and, contrarily, it, hence became assigned to him, by the Department of Tourism, Government of H.P., (c) yet, given, the trade mark bearing, the, nomenclature 'North Face Adventure Tours', as became assigned, vis-a-vis, the defendant, rather becoming visibly assigned visibly prior, to, the assignment, of, the infringed trade mark, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, thereupon there being no merit, in, the plaintiff's claim. It also become contended, that, the contested trade mark, 'North Face' rather not bearing any similarity, vis-a-vis, the mercantile class, qua wherewith, a, prior assigned trade mark, rather became granted to the defendant, by, the Department of Tourism, Government of H.P., and, whereupon also, no infringement, vis-a-vis, the defendant, qua, the contested trade mark, hence making any emergence. 4. At the outset, this Court would proceed, to, either make absolute the afore order, of, injunction, or, may become constrained, to, modify the afore order, (a) rather only, upon, the afore respective contentions, as, reared before this Court, by, the counsels, for, the contesting litigants concerned, also becoming succored, by, cogent material, (b) and, also this Court may become constrained, to, modify, or, vacate the afore made order, of, temporary injunction, only upon, satisfactory material surging-forth, and, it hence, making unfoldings qua the continuance, of, the afore order, of, injunction, bringing undue hardship, upon, the applicant/defendant. 5. Be that as it may, the contemplated competent authority, under, the Trade Marks Act, had, assigned hence trade mark, nomenclarured as, 'North Face', vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (a) and, the afore assigned trade mark, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, does visibly, appertain to a mercantile class, rather graphically contradistinctive, vis-a-vis, the commercial enterprise(s), engaged into, by, the defendant. 5. Be that as it may, the contemplated competent authority, under, the Trade Marks Act, had, assigned hence trade mark, nomenclarured as, 'North Face', vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, (a) and, the afore assigned trade mark, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, does visibly, appertain to a mercantile class, rather graphically contradistinctive, vis-a-vis, the commercial enterprise(s), engaged into, by, the defendant. Even though, the afore inter-se, contradistinctivity, inter-se, mercantile class, qua wherewith, the afore assigned trade mark, become granted qua the plaintiff, and, vis-a-vis, the, prior thereto, hence, user of trade name, hence bearing, the, nomenclature, 'North Face Adventure Tours', rather by, the defendant, hence, under an apposite grant, as, made by the Department of Tourism, Government of H.P., (b) yet, may also bring application(s) thereon, vis-a-vis, verdicts, of, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as pronounced, in, Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food Products Ltd, AIR 1960 SC, 142, and, also the verdict rendered by the Delhi High Court, in, Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Vs. Allied Blender & Distillers 2015 (63) PTC 551 (Del), (c) emphatically with, the, afore verdicts carrying expostulation(s) law, vis-a-vis, the apposite similarity(ies), in, the trade mark name, dehors any distinctivity, inter-se, the, mercantile class(s) qua, wherewith, the, apposite trade mark name, hence become granted, to, the plaintiff, vis-a-vis, the mercantile class or enterprise engaged, into hence, by the errant litigant, rather constraining Courts, of, law, to, prohibit user thereof. Needless, to, say, the, plaintiffs' contention, does beget, succor therefrom, (d) yet, the test for determination, vis-a-vis, theres' he coming hence sparked, any valid infringement thereof, becomes rather expostulated therein, to, become comprised, in, the apposite infringing contradistinct businesses', or enterprises', hence using(s) therein, hence the similar thereto assigned trade mark name, rather by contemplated statutory authority, (e) and, there upons' hence there through(s), there occurring beguiling confusion, in, the minds, of, the consumers concerned, (f) conspicuously, rather though, the misuser of, the statutorily validly made trade mark name, hence by the errant litigant, hence bringing unjust commercial gains, upon, the errant litigants, which, otherwise, he would not beget. Moreover, also the prior user, of, trade mark name, inasmuch as, of 'North Face Adventure', rather by the defendant, and, though it became assigned, qua him, not by the competent authority, rather, by the Department of Tourism, Government of H.P., hence prima facie, thereupon, the, afore evident factum, of, apposite prior user, does dispel, the afore efficacy, of, the afore expostulations, as, made in the judgment supra, rendered, by, the Hon'ble Apex Court. Importantly, when prima facie, prior user of trade mark name, 'North Face Adventure', by the defendant, is, dehors, the subsequent thereto assignment, of, the contested trade mark name, hence vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, rather by the competent authority, is rather concludable, to, prima facie, hence not engender, any, beguiling confusion(s), becoming beset, upon, the minds, of, the consumers concerned, (f) given theirs' becoming familiarized therewith, nor any, purported, inter-se similarity, inter-se, the contested trade mark name, and, vis-a-vis, the trade mark name, as, used by the defendant, hence would beget any firm inferences, visa- vis, the defendant, passing off, the contested trade name, especially when, through earlier, therewith user, he has rather generated hence goodwill, amongst, the, consumers' concerned. However, for, the hereinafter assigned reasons, prima facie, at this stage, it becomes neither necessary, to, firmly rest any conclusion qua the user, by, the defendant, of, the purportedly similar trade mark name, as, became statutorily assigned, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, hence engendering any highlighted infringement, becoming visited, vis-a-vis, the afore assigned trade mark name, qua the plaintiff, by the competent authority. (h) Emphatically, when, uncontrovertedly, with the, defendant rather instituting, an, application bearing application No. 2041186, for, assigning qua him, the trade mark name, 'North Face Adventure Tours', hence before the Registrar, of, Trade Marks, and, also with the afore application being yet sub-judice therefore, (i) besides with the plaintiff filing, an apposite opposition application, before, the competent authority, under, the Trade Marks Act. Significantly, also when, in, the afore application(s), the imperative factum, which may hence engage the mind(s), of, the apposite authority, is, vis-a-vis, the mandate, embodied in Section 12, of, the Trade Marks Act, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- “Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc. Significantly, also when, in, the afore application(s), the imperative factum, which may hence engage the mind(s), of, the apposite authority, is, vis-a-vis, the mandate, embodied in Section 12, of, the Trade Marks Act, provisions whereof, are, extracted hereinafter:- “Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc. In the case of honest concurrent use or of other special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to do, he may permit the registration by more than one proprietor of the trade marks which are identical or similar (whether any such trade mark is already registered or not) in respect of the same or similar goods or services, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as the Registrar may think fit to impose” (a) where through, a, statutory leverage becomes conferred, upon, the authority concerned, to, assign identical, or, similar trade mark(s) hence, qua, the claimant(s) concerned, yet, on such condition(s) or limitation(s), as the, Registrar concerned, thinks fit to impose, upon, the claimant concerned. In aftermath, hence, the afore mandate, dehors, the afore expostulation of law, as borne, in, the verdict supra, rendered, by the Apex Court, does rather, to, a minimal extent, hence prima facie at this stage, erode the efficacy, of, the verdict supra, (i) inasmuch as, with, the verdict supra, as, relied upon, by the counsel for the plaintiff, becoming rendered, without there before, there being, any subjudice lis, pending before the competent authority concerned, (j) and its rather containing, any, res controversia, as, appertaining, to, the validity, of, any assignment, of, any common trade mark(s) name, rather by the competent authority concerned, vis-a-vis, the affirmatively hence contesting litigant, (k) wherein, as aforestated, the prior user of trade name, “North Face Adventures', by the defendant, is, claimed, by the latter to hence become validly statutorily also assignable, vis-a-vis, him, (l) thereupon till the competent authority, under the Trade Marks Act, conclusively decides, the, sub-judice lis, as, appertaining, to, the rival claim(s), of, the litigants concerned, vis-a-vis, the valid user(s), even of a similar trade mark name, hence by each, (m) hence thereupto, this Court deems it fit, and, proper, to conclude, that, undue hardship rather would become encumbered, upon, the defendant, if, the, afore order of interim injunction, is not, vacated. Moreover, even if, the, afore lis becomes finally determined, hence, by the Registrar concerned, vis-a-vis, plaintiff, yet, thereafter vis-a-vis, the aggrieved therefrom, hence, the apposite statutorily recoursable remedy, is, comprised, in, the aggrieved concerned, rather, instituting there against, an appeal, before the Appellate Court, (n) and, when Section 93, of, the Trade Marks Act, completely ousts the jurisdiction, of, the Civil Courts, to, entertain any challenge there against, (p) thereupon prima facie, at this stage, also this Court, is, of firm view, that, till the afore lis, becomes finally determined, hence there upto the plaintiff, hence not holding, any firm leverage, to validly claim, that, there occurs any infringement or violation, of, the afore trade mark, by the defendant, (q) nor this Court is fully abled, to, pronounce with any formability, vis-a-vis, the apposite lis, hence at this stage, becoming prima facie, fully succored, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. Preeminently, also when, in, the verdict, rendered by the Apex Court, and, as relied upon, by, the counsel for the plaintiff, rather its rendition emanating, upon, a, factual scenario, rather completely contradistinct, vis-a-vis, the factual scenario hereat, (r) hence, it, becomes obviously inapplicable hereat, whereas only upon, the, apposite completest adjudication being made, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, thereupon alone, the, infringing user, of, the, purportedly similar trade name, by the defendant rather would, invite hence rendition(s), of, any decree, of, prohibitory injunction hence against the defendant. 6. Nowat, with, the afore imperative factum probandem, being amiss, rather hence in the interest, of, justice, and, for also ensuring, that, till the afore completest determination, is, made by the competent authority, vis-a-vis, the sub-judice there before, hence contesting claim(s), of, the litigants, hence, no prejudice, or, mercantile harm, becomes encumbered, upon, the defendant, (a) hence, this Court, is, constrained, to, vacate the order pronounced by this Court, on 1.1.2020, upon, OMP No. Nos. 211 & 323 of 2018, (b) where through, an interim order, of, injunction, become pronounced, by this Court, on 26.5.2018, hence, restraining the defendant, from, infringing the registered trade mark name, assigned, by, the competent authority, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above observations, the, instant application, is, disposed of. Any observation made herein above shall not be taken as any expression, of, opinion, on, the merits, of, the main case.