In view of this Court also the cosmetic being now manufactured by R-2 on a license given by R-1 cannot be called a spurious cosmetic as defined under Section 17-D of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 inasmuch as it is not being manufactured under the name which belongs to another cosmetic and moreover in view of the interim injunction of the Madras High Court as well as the interim orders of the Delhi High Court and in the light of the undertaking given by the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court, for the purposes of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the name JOLEN presently does not belong to the Petitioner nor is it an imitation or substitute of any cosmetic or resembles cosmetic in a manner likely to deceive or bear upon its label or container in the name of another cosmetic as contemplated under Section 17-D(b) of the Act. In view the interim order of this Delhi High Court as well as the Madras High Court. Legally speaking, the cosmetic being manufactured by R-2 as a licensee of R-3, is not a spurious cosmetic and therefore, the license has rightly been given to R-2 by R-1 under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. However, this Court refrains from saying anything on the relative merits of the parties pertaining to their trade mark dispute as the matter is subjudice before the Delhi High Court as well as the Madras High Court and strictly speaking that is also not the lis here.