- (1.) It is not enough to say that there was no fraudulent intention. That is no reason why an injunction should not be granted. I do not think I have any option if the marks, which defendants have used, are those of the plaintiffs; no matter what their intention was, a perpetual injunction would be granted. In the meantime an interlocutory injunction must issue. Obviously there is a close imitation. Interlocutory injunction to issue with costs.;