law: Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
  67. Relief in suit
  
  for infringement or for passing off.-
  1.  The
  
  relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement or for passing off
  
  referred to in section 66 includes injunction (subject to such terms, if any,
  
  as the court thinks fit) and at t e option of the plaintiff, either damages or
  
  account of profits, together with or without any order for the delivery-up of
  
  the infringing labels and indications for destruction or erasure.
  2.  The
  
  order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include an ex parte injunction or
  
  any interlocutory order for any of the following matters, namely:-
  a.   for discovery of
  
  documents;
  b.   preserving of
  
  infringing goods, documents or other evidence which are related to the
  
  subject-matter of the suit;
  c.   restraining the
  
  defendant from disposing of or dealing with his assets in a manner which may
  
  adversely affect plaintiff's ability to recover damages, costs or other
  
  pecuniary remedies which may be finally awarded to the plaintiff.
  1.  
  2.  
  3.  Notwithstanding
  
  anything contained in sub-section (1), the court shall not grant relief by way
  
  of damages (other than nominal damages) on account of profits in any case-
  a.   where in a suit for
  
  infringement the defendant satisfies the court-
   
  
   i.  
  
    that
  
  at the time he commenced to use the geographical indication complained of in
  
  the suit he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the
  
  geographical indication of the plaintiff was on the register; and
   
  
   ii.  
  
    that
  
  when he became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff's right in
  
  the geographical indication, he forthwith ceased to use the geographical
  
  indication in relation to good in respect of which it was registered; or
  a.  
  b.   where in a suit for
  
  passing off, the defendant satisfies the court-
   
  
   i.  
  
    that
  
  at the time he commenced to use the geographical indication complained of in
  
  the suit he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the
  
  geographical indication relating to the plaintiff was in use; and
   
  
   ii.  
  
    that
  
  when he became aware of the existence and nature of the geographical indication
  
  relating to the plaintiff he forthwith ceased to use the geographical
  
  indication complained of.