1. In my opinion this is a borderline case in which I should not be justified in making an interlocutory injunction upon the materials disclosed in the affidavits. Although there is considerable similarity in the colour scheme of the two spools and the labels upon them, yet the business names of the plaintiff company and defendant 1 are indicated on the spools and also the initials, which I may say have no letter in common, under which the cotton is sold. In addition to this the plaintiff's cotton is shown to be manufactured at Paisley, and defendant 1's cotton at Ahmedabad. Defendant 1 suggests that his cotton is known as swadeshi cotton, and this fact is emphasized when a customer purchases their goods. I am not at present in a position to say how far this suggestion is substantiated or if it has any effect on the rights of the parties but in the absence of evidence of any actual cases in which the defendant's cotton has been sold to persons desiring to purchase the plaintiff's cotton or of cases where illiterate customers had been misled by the defendant's design into thinking that they were buying the plain-tiff's cotton, I do not feel justified, simply because the two spools have various features in common in granting an interlocutory injunction. In these circumstances, I direct that this motion stand to trial, and that the costs be costs in the action. This interim injunction is dissolved.