convenience lies in his favour and whether if an interim injunction is not granted in his favour, he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. From the material placed on record by the plaintiff the learned Trial Court in para 4.2 of the impugned order has clearly observed that according to the respondent they have been using their trademark “DIYA” since 1985 and with the label in question since 2004. The Trial Court has also observed that while the appellant has placed on record various bills from 2005 onwards that rice under mark “AARATI”, was being sold in the market of India and abroad and similarly the defendant also placed on record a few old bills of the years 1995, 1996, 1997 onwards that rice under the mark “DIYA” was being sold by them under different packaging/weighing. In the background of these conflicting claims this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court taking a view that there is a triable issue as who was the prior user, since both the parties have placed on record their respective bills for selling rice under different packaging in respect of rice under the mark AARATI and DIYA. However learned counsel for the appellant has laid much stress on the similarity of both the packaging material i.e. one brought out by the appellant and the other brought out by the respondent because of the combination of colours,
