ARUN BHANSALI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission.
(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was a prior user of the Trade Mark and has wrongly determined the implication of the examination report and the reply filed by the plaintiff to the examination report, which clearly indicates that the Trade Marks of the appellant were responded to by the plaintiff by indicating that the mark cited in the search report is different from distinctive Trade Mark applied by the plaintiff in all respects.
(3.) Further submissions were made with respect to provisions of Sections 30(3), 34 and 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ('the Act of 1999') to submit that the trial court was not justified in granting injunction.;