presence of Mr.K.Harishankar, Advocate for the Applicant in both Original Applications, and Mr.Arun C. Mohan, Advocate for the Respondent in both Original Applications and upon reading the Judges Summons and the Affidavit of Mr.Vishwadeep Kuila, filed in O.A.Nos. 71 & 72 of 2022 and the Plaint filed herein, and having stood over for consideration till this date and coming on this day before this Court for orders in the presence of the said advocates for the parties hereto and this Court having observed that both in the reply to the cease and desist notice and in the counter, the respondent asserted that it has used the mark 'ProClean' from June 2020, in fact, the respondent stated that its turnover from the sale of products bearing the impugned mark is about Rs.4327 lakhs, the applicant is unable to controvert these assertions, by contrast, the applicant has not produced its sales turnover and advertising expenditure, it is also pertinent to notice and record that the Applicant sells products under different names such as ProFab, ProDish, GreaseOut, ProGloss, DeepImpact, ProJanit, the mark ''ProKlean'' is only used in conjunction with the above mentioned trade names and not separately, and the above tilts the balance of convenience against the grant of interim injunction since in this factual context, the hardship caused thereby to the respondent would outweigh the hardship to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the applicant by the denial of interim injunction, as regards the application
