JUDGMENT : 1. By this suit, the plaintiff seeks relief in respect of alleged infringement of its registered trade mark CABGOLIN through the use of the impugned trade mark CB-GOLIN or any mark deceptively similar thereto. The plaintiff also seeks relief in respect of alleged passing off. 2. Suit summons was served on the first defendant on 03.09.2024 and on the second defendant on 30.08.2024. In spite of service of suit summons, neither defendant entered appearance to contest the suit. By order dated 17.03.2025, the defendants were set ex parte and the plaintiff was permitted to record ex parte evidence. 3. The plaintiff filed the affidavit of K.Subramanian by way of evidence. In course of the examination in chief of P.W.1, 10 documents were exhibited as Exs.P1 to P10. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to Ex.P2, which is the legal use certificate in respect of the trade mark CABGOLIN. The said certificate reveals that the word mark CABGOLIN was registered with effect from 04.08.2003 in Class 5 relating to medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations and substances. The certificate further records that the mark was used since 01.05.2003. As evidence of use, the plaintiff exhibited sales invoices as Ex.P4 series. The first of these invoices is dated 02.05.2003. As evidence of sales turnover, the plaintiff exhibited the certificate issued by Valia & Timbadia, Chartered Accountants. The said certificate sets out the turnover from financial year 2012-13 to financial year 2018-19. The turnover mentioned therein for financial year 2018-19 is Rs.3263.23 lakhs. In the plaint, at paragraph 14, the plaintiff has indicated that the turnover for financial year 2023-24 from sale of products bearing the trade mark CABGOLIN was Rs.3052.95 lakhs. The packaging of products bearing the impugned mark has been exhibited as Ex.P9. On comparing Ex.P9 with Ex.P8, which is the packaging of the plaintiff's products bearing the mark CABGOLIN, it is clear that the marks are deceptively similar. It is also pertinent to record that the marks are used in respect of similar goods. 5. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. As regards the prayer in paragraph 34(e), Ex.P10 evidences that the second defendant destroyed infringing goods and materials bearing the impugned mark. Consequently, no purpose would be served by granting prayer (e). Prayer (f) relates to a declaration that the plaintiff's trade mark is a well-known trade mark. 5. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. As regards the prayer in paragraph 34(e), Ex.P10 evidences that the second defendant destroyed infringing goods and materials bearing the impugned mark. Consequently, no purpose would be served by granting prayer (e). Prayer (f) relates to a declaration that the plaintiff's trade mark is a well-known trade mark. Based on the evidence adduced a decree to that effect cannot be issued. 6. As the successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to costs towards court fees, lawyer's fees and other expenses. The defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as costs. 7. In the result, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of paragraph 34 of the plaint. In addition, the defendants are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) as costs to the plaintiff.