1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.236 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.518 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.261 OF 2009 Rasiklal M. Dhariwal & Anr. ....Appellants V/s. Shilpa Beverages Pvt.Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.B.N. Poojari i/b Asian Patent & Law for the Appellants. Mr.Rajesh More for the Respondent. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & S.J. VAZIFDAR, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. The Appeal is directed against the order dated 15.4.2009 thereby dismissing Notice of Motion No.518 of 2009 filed in Suit No.261 of 2008. 2. The suit has been filed for perpetual injunction, seeking to restrain the Defendants and its servants etc. from infringing with the Plaintiffs’ trade mark “OXYRICH”, by subsequent adoption and/or use of the trade mark “OXYFRESH” which is claimed to be identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trade mark, in 2 respect of packaged of drinking water. The Plaintiffs have also prayed for consequential reliefs in the suit. 3. The learned Single Judge noted that the Plaintiffs’ trade mark was “OXYRICH” came to be registered on 23.5.2002 and prior thereto the product in the same class of “OXYWELL” was registered on 12.7.2001. It was claimed that prefix “OXY” is deceptively similar and therefore, an injunction was sought pending the suit. 4. The learned Single Judge has considered all the aspects and the issues raised before him for his prima-facie consideration and noted that it was doubtful as to whether the Plaintiffs can claim any proprietory rights over the prefix “OXY”. This, in our view, does not call for any interference more particular when a trade mark in their entirety do not prima-facie appears to be similar. 5. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. (S.J.VAZIFDAR, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)