JUDGMENT : Sanjib Banerjee, J. (Prayer: Appeals under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common order dated 23.4.2021 made in O.A.Nos.533, 532, 535, 530, 534 and 531 of 2020 in C.S.No.285 of 2020.) The six appeals arise out of a common interlocutory order in a rolled-up infringement and passing-off action. To boot, infringement of copyright has also been complained of in the suit. 2. Both the parties are engaged in the welding industry and the competing products are welding rods which are affixed to welding machines and mechanics use them upon placing the visor between their faces and the active welding rods. The marks in question can be described as BEST WELD and BEST ARC, but that would be a wholly inaccurate description of the marks since the words do not indicate the nature of the marks actually used or the perceived deception which is the foundation of the judgment and order impugned dated April 23, 2021. In respect of the BEST WELD and BEST ARC devices used by the rival parties, it is best to notice the plaint as the depiction of the packaging material used by the defendant at paragraph 17 when compared to the packages used by the plaintiff which appear at paragraph 7 of the plaint make the task of assessment rather simple. 3. Essentially, infringement and passing-off actions are founded on the tort of deceit. The underlying allegation of a suitor is that the defendant was purporting to filch the trade of the plaintiff in marketing and selling the goods or services in a manner where the purchaser thereof would be deceived into thinking that he was availing of the plaintiff's goods or services when it was actually the defendant's. 4. To ascertain whether deceit is involved in case of goods, it is imperative to notice how they are packaged; quite literally, in a trademark action. In this case, the packages appear to be similar carrying a pale red tone of colouring. Though there are various dissimilar features and when one carton or package is placed next to the other the dissimilarities may stand out, that is not the test. In this case, the packages appear to be similar carrying a pale red tone of colouring. Though there are various dissimilar features and when one carton or package is placed next to the other the dissimilarities may stand out, that is not the test. The overall impression that a package conveys and the imperfect recollection of such package determines whether a previous purchaser of the plaintiff's goods is subsequently misled into buying the defendant's goods by erroneously perceiving it to be of the same packaging as the goods previously purchased. 5. Again, the assessment, based on a visual impression is completed in the first few seconds of casually viewing the two packets. The rest of the time in this jurisdiction is spent to justify the impression and offer, sometimes, imperfect excuses therefor; for, there is a subjective component of the impression that may not be as lucidly captured as the objective considerations that go into the decision-making process. To repeat, it is the overall impression that counts. 6. In this case, it appears that along with the BEST ARC packaging device of the plaintiff, there is the depiction of a human upper body with arms stretched out at about 15 degrees above the horizontal level on both sides and an arc, as in a part of a circumference, drawn out between the two extremities of the outstretched hands. Thus, it is not only the word marks and the verisimilitude thereof, it is also the manner of packaging, the get-up, the colour scheme and the very distinctive depiction of a human upper body with an arc running from one outstretched hand to the other above the head that are the similar eye-catching features involved in the rival packaging. Once the salient features of one form of packaging is found in the other and the former appears to be the earlier or the one with the greater reputation and presence in the market, it is excusable that an inevitable impression may follow that the other has tried to ape the former in an attempt to filch the trade of the former. At least, at the interlocutory stage if a prima facie view in such regard can be arrived at, the injunction sought would be granted. 7. At least, at the interlocutory stage if a prima facie view in such regard can be arrived at, the injunction sought would be granted. 7. The overall impression in this case is overwhelming to the effect that the appellant's packaging is quite similar to the plaintiff's and gives an impression that the two may be the same or emanating from the same source. Once such element of possible confusion is noticed, injunction will issue, subject to the other relevant considerations which need to be taken into account. 8. In the judgment and order impugned in this case, the trial court has, quite appropriately, referred to the packaging in its entirety without needlessly concentrating on the word mark argument that the defendant-appellant naturally wants the court to engage in. If an altogether different form of packaging were to be used by the defendant and the fact that BEST WELD or BEST ARC marks as word marks may not confer any exclusivity of use thereof on the plaintiff, the defendant may not have suffered the injunction; but it is all too plain to see that the appellant in this case has followed the same form of packaging as that of the plaintiff and it can reasonably be concluded that the appellant has sought to take advantage of the plaintiff's reputation in the product or greater market presence to push the sale of the defendant's goods. 9. To the extent that the injunction still leaves room for the appellant herein to cash in on the non-exclusivity of both the BEST and the WELD parts of the words forming a part of the plaintiff's mark, nothing needs to be said as on date. However, as the impugned judgment has appropriately proceeded on the overall impression of the device mark used by the appellant herein which is found to be quite similar to that used by the plaintiff and the get-up and the colour scheme of the packaging material appear to be virtually identical, the injunction issued cannot be questioned. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment and order impugned dated April 23, 2021 cannot be faulted or interfered with. O.S.A.Nos.32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of 2021 are dismissed. C.M.P.Nos.10630, 10649, 10627, 10647, 10634, 10635 of 2021 are closed. There will be no order as to costs.