Court emphasized the necessity of full disclosure when seeking ad-interim reliefs, and established that allegations of suppression must be substantiated to vacate such orders.

1. Two applications, one filed by the plaintiff and the other filed by the defendants, have come up for consideration. In a manner of speaking, the applications are two sides of the same coin, as the plaintiff on the one hand is seeking continuation and confirmation of ad - interim reliefs granted by this Court, while the defendants are seeking vacation of the ad - interim orders granted by this Court by invoking Order XXXIX R.4 of the Civil Procedure Code , 1908 (CPC). The defendants allege that the plaintiff indulged in falsehoods, misleading statements and suppression, indicating that the first proviso to Order XXXIX R.4 of the CPC is clearly applicable in the facts of the present case, thereby justifying the prayer for vacating the ad - interim reliefs. On the other hand, the plaintiff insists that there has been no suppression or falsehoods and that therefore, the ad - interim reliefs already granted deserve to be continued.

2. It is stated in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff opened a juice center in the year 1971, under the trading name 'Race - View Juice Corner', overlooking the Haji Ali Dargah along the Arabian Sea, to provide food and drink, juices, soft drinks and snacks. Around the year 1976, the plaintiff's father adopted the mark 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE', concerning the said business in conjunction with the trading name 'Race View Juice Corner'. In the year 1985, the plaintiff's father changed the trading name of the establishment from 'Race View Juice Corner' to 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE' and around the year 1991, adopted a label mark 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE' with a device of an apple.

3. The word mark 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE' and the label 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE' with the device of the apple were registered in Classes 43 and 32 in the years 2010 and 2001 respectively. The aforesaid registered marks earned substantial goodwill over a period of time and in the year 2019-2020, the turnover reached about Rs. 6.05 crores compared to the earlier turnover, which was about Rs. 1.93 crores for the year 2005-2006. The domain name 'www.hajialijuicecentre.in' was also registered in the year 2013 by the plaintiff's father, wherein information about the restaurant and hospitality business was available to the public at large. The plaintiff claims strong social media presence for the aforesaid marks on Facebook, Instagram as also Zomato and Swiggy.

4. In June 2013, the plaintiff's father passed away and pursuant to a family settlement / agreement dated 03.08.2019, the plaintiff claims to have become the owner of the aforesaid trade mark 'HAJIALI JUICE CENTRE' along with the device of the apple.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that due to the immense goodwill earned by the aforesaid registered marks over a period of time and the business generated, there have been number of instances of entities copying the marks and seeking to take illegal advantage of the aforesaid goodwill. It is on the basis of such pleadings that the plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit, claiming that sometime in March 2021, a representative of the plaintiff was informed by a licensee of the plaintiff from Kerala that the defendant was intending to open an outlet under the name and mark 'HAJI ALI' and that an advertisement in that regard was spotted on the social media platform, Facebook. Upon the representative checking the said platform and making further inquiries, it was found that the name and mark 'Haji Ali Fresh Fruit Juices' with the device of a red apple, as used in the registered mark of the plaintiff, was being used by the defendant and that an outlet was intended to be opened at Vijaywada in Andhra Pradesh. Upon further inquiries made by the representative of the plaintiff, it was found that on an earli