CLARIFICATION ISSUED ON THE MOOT PROPOSITION

I. Is the nature of the consumer action suit, a public interest litigation? If not, can it be
clarified as to what manner of dispute it is?

Answer - Multiple civil cases, clubbed together.

II. Can we derive from the fact that Wahgi has already been provided the licence, hence it has
disclosed its secret ingredient to the registrar?

Answer - No, Wahgi has not disclosed the secret ingredients. It was given a special
relaxation regarding it by the Government at that time

III. What packaging/labelling requirements are not complied with by Wahgi?

Answer - Only the details of the secret ingredient have not been revealed

IV. Whether a show-cause notice was issued to Apoxia before the ban of Wahgi?

Answer – No

V. Has Apoxia Enterprises Limited (Apoxia) obtained trademark, copyright, or patent

protection under Etinia's laws for the contents of Wahgi noodles, which includes the brand
name "Wahgi"?

Answer – Yes

VI. What were the results of the report made by FRL?

Answer - Details of the report have not been made public

VII. What will the name of the case be in the cause list since there are 3 different issues? Who
will be the respondent and complainant in the final clubbed matter?

Answer - Applicants: FRL, Consumers | Respondent: Apoxia

VIII. What exactly were the 'special permits and relaxations' given to Apoxia at the time of
registration?

Answer - Tax incentives, fast-tracked approvals, and relaxation of certain regulatory

requirements.

IX. Is FRL, an accredited laboratory under FSSAE Act Regulations

Answer - Yes