( 1 ) THE plaintiff company is engaged in manufacture and sale of consumer products and one of the products of the plaintiff is liquid shoe polish being manufactured and marketed by them under the name and style of Cherry Blossom Premium Liquid Wax Polish. Shoe polish in the liquid form is stated to have been introduced by the plaintiff about 10 years back and it comprises of natural wax available, namely, Carnauba wax allegedly being imported from Brazil for purposes of making this polish. Defendant is also engaged in the manufacture of polish and one of the brand being manufactured and marketed by the defendant is "kiwi" brand of liquid polish. It is alleged that the liquid polish being marketed by the defendant and some other manufacturers have much less wax contents and more acrylic contents as compared to the liquid polish of the plaintiff. The acrylic base allegedly tends to form a film on the footwear which over a period of time is liable to crack and thus damage the footwear. It is, therefore, stated that the liquid polish of the plaintiff having wax rich formula is better than the other polishes. The liquid polish of the plaintiff is sold and marketed in angle neck bottles which is alleged to have easy application of the polish to the footwear. An imported applicator is alleged fitted on to the bottle which is strengthened by chemical flocking on the surface as also by riveting the sponge on to the plastic applicator base. The plaintiff has claimed its product to be superior than the similar product of the other competitors in every respect and it is stated that the plaintiff has 68% market share of the liquid shoe polish whereas the defendant has only 20% of such share.

( 2 ) THE defendant with a view to promote its product is displaying an advertisement through the electronic media. The advertisement of the defendant shows a bottle of "kiwi". from which the word "kiwi" is written on white surface which does not drip as against another bottle described as "others" which drips. The product shown to have been flowing from the bottle of "others" is from a bottle marked "brand X" and allegedly looks like the bottle of the liquid shoe polish of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff allegedly has a designed registration granted in 1993 under design No. 165756. The bottle of "others" marked "brand X" also has a red blob on its surface which allegedly represents "cherry" which appear on the bottle of the plaintiffs product. Besides the advertisement in the electronic media, defendant had also been circulating a "point of sale" poster material at shops and marketing outlets selling similar products. It is alleged that in the said poster material circulated by the defendant, the bottle shown as "others" with a faulty applicator allegedly resembles the applicator of the plaintiff.

( 3 ) THAT being aggrieved by the aforesaid advertisement of the defendant in the electronic media as well as "point of Sale" poster material at the marketing outlets, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from advertising the products in the manner they had been doing.

( 4 ) THE averments made in the plaint are that the said advertisement in the electronic media as well as circulation of "point of Sale" poster material is clearly designed to malign the product of the plaintiff. In the said advertisement, the defendant claims that its product has more wax than any other liquid polish. The said claim of the defendant is alleged to be completely false and it is alleged in the plaint that the defendant by the said advertisement has been making a false claim that its product docs not drip hut the products of "others" (Brand X) do drip. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, is that in case the advertisement is allowed to be circulated in the electronic media or by circulation of "point of Sale" posters, the same shall not only damage the plaintiffs market share but would also cause irreparabl