i. Disclaimer/limitation: though in the present Suit the Plaintiff has sought to enforce rights in respect of the registrations obtained by the Plaintiff in Class 20, 25 and 35, in the context of the application for ex parte ad interim relief, it is only the Plaintiff’s registration in Class 25 that is relevant. This is so because Class 25 is in respect of goods and covers “footwear”, whereas Class 35 is in respect of services, and it was the Plaintiff’s specific case that the Defendants were infringing the Plaintiff’s trade mark by selling footwear, i.e., goods, under the impugned trade mark. Thus, the very basis of the Plaintiff’s claim for seeking ex parte ad interim relief was the Plaintiff’s registration in Class 25 and not Class 35. It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff’s registration in Class 25 contained a specific limitation/disclaimer by which the operation/validity of the said registration was specifically restricted to only the State of Maharashtra. The Plaintiff has, in the course of oral submissions, in fact conceded that in view of the limitation/disclaimer, the Plaintiff on the basis of the Class 25 registration would not have been entitled to an injunction for infringement of trade mark which would operate beyond the State of Maharashtra. Thus, while it is unstateable to contend, as the Plaintiff has, that non-disclosure of
