JUDGMENT Pankanj Bhandari, J. - The appellant has preferred the instant appeal aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.11.2019 passed by the Commercial Court, Ajmer, in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.34/2019 (CIS No.18/2019) titled as M/s. Mittal Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Parwati Oil Mills whereby temporary injunction application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the appellant was partly rejected. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit along with an application for injunction praying therein that the respondent be restrained from using the name/trademark 'POSTMAN'. It was contended in the application that the appellant - Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling edible oils like mustard oil, groundnut oil etc. under the name POSTMAN, POSTMAN MUSTARD OIL AND DEVICE OF 'POSTMAN', which is duly registered under the Trademark Act. It was also mentioned in the application that it had come to the knowledge of the appellant that the respondent is conducting business of edible oils in the name of 'Parwati Postman Plus'. It was mentioned that the use of the device 'POSTMAN' in 'Parwati Postman Plus' is creating a situation of confusion/doubt in the mind of the consumers, which in turn causes legal infringement, passing off and injury to the appellant and because of sub- standard quality of the respondent's product. It is contended that the goodwill of the appellant's name is being harmed along with incalculable financial loss. The respondent in their reply raised preliminary objection that the trademark of the appellant was given only for mustard oil and not for other edible oils and that both the trademarks are different and the business carried on by both is also different. The learned Court below while partly allowing the temporary injunction application directed the respondent not to manufacture mustard oil in the name of 'Parwati Postman Plus', aggrieved by which, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. It is contended by Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, appearing for the appellant that 'POSTMAN' is a registered trademark of the appellant. The appellant and the respondent both are dealing with the edible oil. Use of term 'POSTMAN' in 'Parwati Postman Plus' creates confusion in the mind of the consumers. 3. It is contended by Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shovit Jhajharia, appearing for the appellant that 'POSTMAN' is a registered trademark of the appellant. The appellant and the respondent both are dealing with the edible oil. Use of term 'POSTMAN' in 'Parwati Postman Plus' creates confusion in the mind of the consumers. The respondent - Company has not got its name registered with the trademark authorities and use of word 'POSTMAN' tantamounts to passing off and infringement of the appellant's trademark. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Satyam Infoway Ltd. Versus Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd.: (2004) 6 SCC 145 wherein dispute pertains to use of 'Siffynet' and the trademark was registered in the name of 'Sify'. The respondent therein started using word 'Siffynet'. The Apex Court held that the names were phonetically similar and the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was seeking to cash in on the appellant's reputation as a provider of service on the internet. Reliance is also placed on Heinz Italia & Anr. Versus Dabar India Ltd.: (2007) 6 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court has held that the dispute pertained to use of the word 'Glucose' in 'Glucose-D', which was similar to the registered trademark 'Glucon-D' of the appellants. The Court held that in the case of passing off action, the similarities rather than dissimilarities have to be taken note of by the Court and the principle of phonetic similarity cannot be ignored. In Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. Versus B. Vijaya Sai & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.404 of 2022, it was held that the appellant - plaintiff's trademark 'Renaissance' is registered for entries, which dealt with hotels and hotel related services and goods and respondent-defendant's mark and business name 'Sai Renaissance' was also being used in relation to similar services. It was held that the words are phonetically as well as visually similar. The Court held that a case of infringement was made out. Reliance is also placed on Dhariwal Industries & Ors. Versus M.S.S. Food Products: (2005) 3 SCC 63 . 4. It was held that the words are phonetically as well as visually similar. The Court held that a case of infringement was made out. Reliance is also placed on Dhariwal Industries & Ors. Versus M.S.S. Food Products: (2005) 3 SCC 63 . 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent contends that the appellant's trademark was registered only for mustard oil and the Court below has restrained the respondent for using 'Parwati Postman Plus' for mustard oil and therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Court below cannot be said to be illegal. Learned counsel has placed reliance on M/s. Nandhini Deluxe Versus M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd.: Civil Appeal Nos.2937-2942 of 2018 decided by the Apex Court on 26.07.2018. 5. We have considered the submissions. 6. Admittedly, the word 'POSTMAN' is a device, which is registered with the trademark authorities. The appellant is dealing with edible oil and the respondent, who is also dealing with edible oil, intends to use the word 'POSTMAN' with a prefix and suffix, prefix being 'Parwati' and suffix being 'Plus'. The 'POSTMAN' is a name, which has earned reputation and the use of word with the prefix and suffix is bound to cause confusion in the mind of the general public and is clearly intended to avail the benefit of reputation earned by the appellant. 7. Judgment in M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (supra) on which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondent was a case where Dairy Federation adopted the mark 'Nandhini'. The appellant before the Supreme Court, used the word 'Nandhini Deluxe'. It was observed by the Apex Court that though there was a phonetic similarity insofar as the words NANDHINI/NANDINI are concerned, the trademarks with logo adopted by the two parties were altogether different. The manner in which the appellant has written NANDHINI as its mark was totally different from the style adopted by the respondent for its mark 'NANDINI'. Further, the appellant has used and added the word 'Deluxe' and, thus, its mark is 'NANDHINI DELUXE' and is followed by the words 'the real spice of life'. There is device of lamp with the word 'NANDHINI'. In contrast, the respondent has used only one word, namely, NANDINI, which is not prefixed or suffixed by any word. Further, the appellant has used and added the word 'Deluxe' and, thus, its mark is 'NANDHINI DELUXE' and is followed by the words 'the real spice of life'. There is device of lamp with the word 'NANDHINI'. In contrast, the respondent has used only one word, namely, NANDINI, which is not prefixed or suffixed by any word. In its mark 'Cow' as a logo is used beneath which the word NANDINI is written, it is encircled by egg shape circle. The Apex Court observed that a bare perusal of the two marks would show that there is hardly any similarity of the appellant's mark with that of the respondent when these marks are seen in totality. The Apex Court also observed that two marks are not similar. The Apex Court further observed that both the parties are dealing with different products. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the appellant has not adopted the trademark to take unfair advantage of the trademark of the respondent and the use of 'NANDHINI' by appellant in respect of its different goods would not be detrimental to the purported distinctive character or repute of the trademark of the respondent. The Court also observed that the appellant had adopted the trademark in respect of items sold in its restaurants way back in the year 1989, which was soon after the respondent had started using the trade mark 'NANDINI'. Thus, the judgment in M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (supra) does not help the respondent as the case therein involved dissimilar goods. 8. Admittedly, both the appellant and the respondent are dealing with the business of edible oil. The trademark 'POSTMAN' device is also registered as a trademark and using the word 'POSTMAN' between 'Parwati' and 'Plus' intends to harm the reputation earned by the appellant and is also intended to gain from the goodwill earned by the appellant. The intention of using the word 'Postman' by the respondent was clearly to gain benefit of the goodwill earned by the appellant and therefore, would amount to passing off. 9. The intention of using the word 'Postman' by the respondent was clearly to gain benefit of the goodwill earned by the appellant and therefore, would amount to passing off. 9. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the learned Court below has erred in permitting the respondent in using 'Parwati Postman Plus' for manufacturing of other edible oil when the Court itself has come to the conclusion that the trademark of respondent is similar to that of appellant. The word 'POSTMAN' is registered with the appellant and use of the same in the trademark of 'Parwati Postman Plus' is bound to cause confusion in the mind of the general public and was used by the respondent only to gain advantage of the goodwill earned by the appellant. We, therefore, deem it proper to allow the appeal. Consequently, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is allowed in toto and the appeal is accordingly allowed. The respondent is restrained from using the word 'Postman' in 'Parwati Postman Plus' for any form of edible oil. Order of trial Court is modified accordingly. 10. All the pending applications stand disposed of.