1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1343 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1655 OF 2008 M/s.Sneha Publishers, Tikare Brothers, Skylark : Appellants/ Complex, & ors. : Defendants. versus Saraswati Publishing Co.Pvt. Ltd. By its Managing Director : Respondents/ Shri S.D.Shirke : Plaintiffs. Shri. P.M.Havnur for the Appellants. Shri.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Shri.Amit Borkar for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 05, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal is directed against the order dated 24/12/2008 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Kolhapur by which order injunction has been granted against the Defendants, not to print, publish and market their impugned calenders/dindarshika/varshik-panchang in the name of “Haripriya” 2 and “Sanchari” version and “Shri Ganesh” in regular and office version or any other deceptively similar name so as to pass off the said impugned calenders as that of Plaintiffs “Shri Mahalaxmi” calender and to withdraw from market their agents, stockists, distributors, retailers etc. all the impugned calenders forthwith and not to infringe Plaintiff's rights under the Trade Mark Act and the Copy Right Act. 2. The Plaintiffs have filed Regular Civil Suit No.3/08 against the acts of the Defendants for passing off and the other reliefs under the Trade Mark Act and the Copy Right Act. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are engaged in the business of printing yearly calenders in Marathi. The Plaintiffs have printed their calenders in the name of “Shri Mahalaxmi” whereas the Defendants have printed their calenders in the name of “Haripriya”. There is a history of litigation between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Plaintiffs having filed suits against the Defendants for printing deceptive calenders. One of such suits is Suit No.2/2001 for the deceptive calenders printed by the Defendants in the year 2001 namely “Jay Mahalaxmi”, in which suit 3 there is an interim injunction operating in favour of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants have thereafter published calenders in the year 2002 in the name of “Vijaylaxmi”, in the year 2003 in the name of “Saubhagyalaxmi”, in the year 2006 in the name of “Shri Dhanlaxmi” and on all such occasions, the Plaintiffs were constrained to file suits on the ground of passing off in which suits the applications for injunction against the Defendants have been granted by the trial Court. 3. The instant suit is in respect of the calender for the year 2009. The Court below, considering the well settled tests laid down, in so far as passing off action is concerned, has come to a conclusion that the calender of the Defendants printed in the name of “Haripriya” is deceptively similar to the calender printed by the plaintiffs in the name of “Shri Mahalaxmi”. The Court below has further come to a conclusion that the deceptiveness is in the fact that both the names are inter-changeable. 4. In my view, considering the reasons cited by the trial Court 4 in granting injunction, no interference is called for at the hands of this Court in the above Appeal. The above Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.1655 of 2008 does not survive and is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]