lifestyle in any projects or films without the prior permission of the plaintiff, alleging that any such effort would infringe the personality rights of SSR and also cause deception in the minds of the public, which would amount to passing off. Additionally, costs and damages were also sought. 3. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed IA 5697/2021, seeking an interlocutory injunction against the defendants using SSR‘s name, caricature, lifestyle or likeness in any films or other ventures, pending disposal of the suit. 4. IA 5697/2021 was dismissed by a coordinate bench of Sanjeev Narula, J., vide judgment dated 10 June 2021. Para 43 of the said judgment, which is of relevance, reads thus: ―43. On the aspect of irreparable loss, we may note that the suit is not premised as a tortious action for defamation. It is founded on the basis of breach of celebrity/publicity rights inhering to the Plaintiff. It is thus opined that if an interim order is granted, it would be difficult to compensate the Defendants in the event Plaintiff ultimately does not succeed in the suit. Whereas, the Plaintiff can always re-apply at a later juncture for injunction, if there is a change in circumstances after the release of the said film, and has an adequate remedy of being compensated by award of damages, if the Plaintiff proves in trial that the celebrity/publicity rights were inheritable and inured to him exclusively. To ensure that, the Defendants are directed to render complete and true accounts of the revenue earned from the films by way of sale/licensing of all rights relating to the films.‖ 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff appealed to the Division Bench of this Court by way of FAO (OS) (COMM) 88/2021, which was disposed of, by the Division Bench, vide the following order dated 26 July 2021: Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 187/2021 Page 3 of 68