Facts:

• Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) (FAO (OS) No.368/2014) was engaged in the manufacturing, blending, and bottling Indian Made Foreign Liquor under the mark 'Collector's Choice'.
• M/s. Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. (Appellant) (FAO (OS) No.493/2014) sold Indian made foreign liquor under the mark 'Officer's Special', launched in December 2008.
• M/s.Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent) manufactured and marketed alcoholic beverages, including 'Officer's Choice', one of its most popular trademarks adopted in 1988.
• The Respondent, having prior ownership and registration of the "Officer's Choice" trademark, asserted exclusive rights to the mark. They initiated suits against the appellants for allegedly using confusingly similar trademarks, "Collector's Choice" and "Officer's Special," which conveyed a similar concept of authority and choice, potentially leading to consumer confusion.
• The Single Judge issued an injunction against Shree Nath Heritage & M/s. Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd, prohibiting the use of 'Collector's Choice' for its whisky during the litigation.
• Hence, the present appeal was filed.

Background

• Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant of FAO (OS) No.368/2014) challenged the order disposing of IA No.20759/2013 by the Learned Single Judge. This order confirmed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on December 19, 2013, restraining Shree Nath Heritage from using the mark 'Collector's Choice' for its whisky during the suit's pendency.
• M/s. Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. (the Appellant of FAO (OS) No.493/2014) challenged the order of IA No.1685/2009 filed by M/s.Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (the Plaintiff). This order confirmed the ex-parte ad-interim order restraining M/s.Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd. from using the mark 'Officer's Special' for its alcoholic beverages, particularly Indian-made foreign liquor, during the suit's pendency.
• Aggrieved by the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge the Appellant, raised the present appeal.

Main Issue:

1. Whether the two words “OFFICER” and “COLLECTOR” were deceptively similar, i.e. whether confusion is likely to take place between these words?
2. Whether the labels used by the Sentini Bio Products Pvt. Ltd (the Appellant) amount to passing off?