HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

This appeal is filed by the appellant against the order passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge had confirmed the order of interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent herein and injuncted the appellant from passing off their products as that of the respondents herein.

2. The respondents herein filed the original applications seeking an order of interim injunction against the appellant herein/defendant from passing off their products as that of the respondents herein, as the trade dress and getup of their products were deceptively similar and almost identical to that of the products manufactured and marketed by the applicants.

3. The case of the applicants before the learned single Judge was that they are in the field of production and sale of food grade plastic storage containers and other products under the brand name of “Tupperware Products”. In the course of business activities, the products of the applicants, due to its characteristic features and design distinct appearance, have become unique pieces in the market and, thereby, the goodwill and reputation of the products of the respondents in the market along with the market share rose leaps and bounds. The products of the respondents is being marketed in more than 100 countries across the globe and the market share and the annual sales revenue of the respondents products is to the tune of $ 2.6 Billion even in the year 2013. The products of the respondents were launched between 2004 and 2011 in the Indian markets and that the respondents are the global leaders in the market pertaining to food grade plastic containers.

4. It is the case of the respondents that they came to know about the identical nature of the products sold by the appellant in the year 2011 within the jurisdiction of this Court, which products are identical in trade dress, design and characteristics to that of the products of the respondents. However, even in the year 2006-2007, coming to know that the appellant is marketing some of the similar products, which are identical to that of the respondents and passing off the said products as that of the respondents, the respondents filed suit before the Delhi High Court with prayer for interim relief. But the same was rejected by the Delhi High Court. Against the said order, appeal was filed by the respondents.

5. Since the appellant is manufacturing and selling products identical in design, distinctiveness and characteristics along with the trade dress to that of the respondents herein, the respondent moved the suit alleging passing off against the appellant herein along with prayer for interim relief.

6. The above stand of the respondents herein was countered by the appellant herein contending that the respondents herein having acquiescence about the of the activity of the appellant and having lost in their quest to obtain interim relief before the Delhi High Court, is estopped from seeking the same relief before this Court on the same cause of action. The said aspect not having been placed before this Court, the respondents have come before this Court with unclean hands and the delay along with the laches on the part of the respondents in not moving this Court at the first instance and further approaching this Court with unclean hands by suppressing the true facts, the respondents are not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of injunction from passing off.

7. Learned single Judge, after exhaustively dealing with the various contentions raised by the parties, in fine, held that the respondents herein have made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction as prayed for with a further liberty to the appellants herein to approach the Court for modification as and when suitable changes are made to the products so that it does not carry resemblance/identity as the products of the respondents herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Court by filing the pres