6.Perusal of the CD file shows that during the course of investigation, the trade mark of the 2nd respondent as well as the brand name of the petitioner has been seized or recovered, wherein we find that the petitioner is using his brand name as 'Green plywood'. The petitioner is also given a statement before the Investigating Officer that during the course of inspection and search, no material bearing the trade name of Green Ply was recovered from his premises. Finding that no such material was recovered, again the second respondent gave a complaint stating that all the plywoods must be seized. It has been stated further that they are purchasing the plywoods from the manufacturer called 'Arafa Plywoods Company', Kerala and they are selling the same in their name called 'Greenland'. The purchase voucher has also been seized, wherein we find that the petitioner purchased the plywoods from Arafa Company, Kerala and the company name is mentioned as 'Hahamed Plywoods'. It is further stated that it is a concerned called 'Green plywoods'. A certificate from the Alpha Company has also been obtained, wherein they have confirmed the supply. After receiving the complaint, search was undertaken, after intimating the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy by the Wing called 'Intellectual Property Enforcement Cell'. So the brand name of the second respondent is 'Green Ply”, whereas as mentioned above, by purchasing the commercial plywood from the above Arafa Plywood and Veneers, they are selling their own brand name 'Green Land' and the logo is entirely different, that was used by the second respondent, as we find from the photographs. So the contention on the part of the 2nd respondent that this petitioner is using the trade name and infringed the copy right and they are selling the same is not at all supported by the materials, that have been collected during the course of investigation.
