JUDGMENT :

I.A Nos. 10869/2018 (under Order 39 Rule 1,2 CPC), 16105/2018 (under Order 39 Rule 1,2 CPC), 3084/2019 ( under Order 39 Rule 1,2,2A CPC) & 16106/2018 (under Section 151 CPC)

1. The afore-noted applications seeking ad-interim injunctions are being disposed of by this common order. By way of these applications, the Plaintiff seeks an order for restraining the Defendant from broadcasting, publishing and printing the advertisements that are subject matter of the present suit.

Proceedings in the Suit

2. Along with the suit, the Plaintiff filed an interim application [I.A No. 10869/2018] and sought restraining orders in respect of (a) Print Advertisement and (b) Television Commercial (TVC) [Collectively referred as 1st Impugned Advertisements]. This Court vide it’s order dated 27th August 2018 directed the Defendant not to publish the advertisement and to remove the TVC from the website www.youtube.com. The Court also directed the Defendant not to publish the ‘new advertisement’ which was yet to be aired. Aggrieved by the said order, the Defendant filed an Appeal bearing FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 209/2018. In then said appeal, the Division Bench vide order dated 5th September 2018, permitted the Defendant to publish its ‘new advertisement’. Pursuant to the said order, the Defendant aired it’s TVC in and around 13th November 2018. The Plaintiff aggrieved by the said TVC, filed another application bearing No. 16105/2018 seeking an injunction against the Defendant from airing, broadcasting or publishing its New Television Commercial aired on 13th November, 2018 [2nd Impugned Advertisement]. The Application came up for hearing before this Court on 27th November 2018 and the Court was pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the aforenoted order dated 27th November 2018, the Defendant preferred an Appeal bearing FAO (OS) (COMM) No. 285/2018. The Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 3rd December 2018 permitted the Defendant to publish its advertisement in the modified form, incorporating the changes suggested by its counsel during the course of hearing. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“4.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of his submissions, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the basis for the respondent to file the suit seeking injunction on the alleged ground that the appellant's advertisement is misleading unfair, deceptive and is sought to be issued with a dishonest intention to disparage the respondent's product is because of the depiction of the bottle in white and red colour, which according to the respondent herein depicts it's bottle of Chyawanprash. He submits that the appellant herein is ready and willing to replace the said bottle in the advertisement with a bottle of the appellant's own product/Zandu Chyawanprash wherever it occurs in the advertisement. He states that the very basis on which the allegations as afore-stated are being made shall not subsist and the stay needs to be vacated. He states, the appellant shall continue this depiction in the advertisement till the next date of hearing before the learned Single Judge on 8th January, 2019 as according to him, it is this period where there is maximum consumption of Chyawanprash.

5. Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on this submission of Mr. Nayar, states that the appellant must also ensure that the printing on the bottle of the appellant", as proposed to be used in the subject commercial, should also depict the words "Zandu Chyawanprash". If this being the submission made by Mr. Singh, we are of the view that even the bottle of red and white depicted in the impugned advertisement, supposed to be relating to the respondent herein, does not depict any words on the same.

6. There is no denia