' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner in these two petitions for special leave to appeal is a pharmaceutical firm, incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom. Amongst others, it manufactures and markets cotrimoxazon, and anti-bacterial drug, under the trade name "Septran". The said trade name has been registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1940.
2. In 1985, the Ideal Pharmacy, respondent No,2 in C.P. No,415, started manufacturing and marketing the same drug under the trade name "Septrim". Similarly, in 1987, the Pharmacare, respondent No,2 in C.P. No, 414, began manufacturing and marketing it under the trade name "Septrex" . Treating the manufacture and marketing of the same drug under closely resembling trade names as a breach of its right, the petitioner brought two suits seeking, inter alia, injunctions to restrain the respondents in the two petitions from preparing and selling the said drug under the trade names adopted by them. It also sought temporary injunctions pendente lite to the same effect. The prayers for temporary injunction were denied by the trial Court and its appeals before the High Court also failed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of these petitions it is contended that the trade names adopted by the respondents in respect of the drug in question are phonetically so similar to that under which the petitioner markets the same drug that an average man is likely to confuse the goods of the petitioner with those of the respondents. In the circumstances, the trial Court as well as the High Court erred in refusing the interim relief sought by the petitioner.
4. The contention raised in suport of these petitions needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000 in each case. The appeals may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. In the meanwhile the respondents are restrained from manufacturing or marketing the drug in question under the names Septrex and Septrim. The pendency of the appeals should not prevent the trial Court from proceeding with the trials as directed by the High Court.