Facts:

• The Neon Laboratories Ltd. Appellant- Defendant were engaged in a pharmaceutical product into the market under the trademark "ROFOL."
• The Medical Technologies Ltd., Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 (Plaintiffs), were engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical products and medicinal preparations. Respondent No. 1 was the owner of the trademark "PROFOL," which was originally coined and invented by their predecessor-in-title, Hematal Biologicals Ltd. or Core Health Care Ltd. Respondent No. 2 was a licensee of Respondent No. 1.
• The predecessor-in-title of Respondent No. 1 had introduced the generic drug "Propofol" in India and applied for the trademark "PROFOL" in April 1998. The product permission for this drug was granted on May 2, 1998. The trademark "PROFOL" was applied for registration on May 24, 1998.
• Respondents-Plaintiffs had filed a suit for injunction, damages, and account of profits against the Appellant on July 17, 2005, claiming that the Appellant’s use of the trademark "ROFOL" for the same generic drug was identical and deceptively similar to their trademark "PROFOL." The Trial Court had granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs, which was upheld by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on December 19, 2005.
• Hence, the appeal was filed before this court.
  

Background:

• This appeal challenged the judgment dated December 19, 2005, of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, who had affirmed the Trial Court's decision to grant an injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs (Respondents ) until the suit was disposed of.
• The Plaintiff-Respondents had initiated the litigation, even though the Defendant-Appellant could have raised concerns about the Plaintiff-Respondents' similar mark in 1992. The Defendant-Appellant filed a Notice of Motion in the Bombay High Court on 14.12.2005, and obtained an injunction on 31.3.2012.

Main Issue:

Whether the prior registration would have the effect of obliterating the significance of the goodwill that had meanwhile been established by the Respondents?

(Paragraph 6)