DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19.07.2022
CASE: CS No. 264 of 2021
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Kolkata
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Hon'ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapoor
CASE TITLE: Marico Limited Vs Dabur India Limited
The Subject matter Suit was filed by the Petitioner seeking relief of permanent injunction for disparagement against the impugned Advertisement namely DABUR AMLA DE SHANTI KE MUKABLE (up to) 50% ZYADA MAZBOOT BAAL”
In fact in this advertisement campaign , the Respondent namely Dabur projected it's product to be 50% better than product of the Petitioner.
At the impugned Advertisement, there was disclaimer attached that UTPAD NIHAR SHANTI AMLA KE SHABD, DEVICE/LABEL MEIN TRADEMARK KE ADHIKAR ‘MARICO LIMITED’ KE PASS HAIN. Thus the Respondent was making categorical averment against the product of the Petitioner.
The Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata reiterated the settled principle of law regarding comparative advertisement as laid down in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. Vs. M.P. Ramchandran reported in (1999) 19 PTC 741 , which is as under:
"I).A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue.
II) He can also say that his goods are better than his competitors', even though such statement is untrue.
III) For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are better than his competitors' he can even compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others.
IV) He however, cannot, while saying that his goods are better than his competitors', say that his competitors' goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible.
In the present case, the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata was pleased to grant interim relief to the Petitioner by observing that the impugned Advertisement does not amount to be mere puffery.
The Hon'ble observed that impugned advertisement of the Respondent presents the petitioner’s product is inferior and bad in comparison to the respondent’s product.
The court further observed that the overall message which the respondent has tried to convey through the impugned advertisements is that the petitioner’s product does not serve the purpose which it is intended to serve. Thus it is apparent that while doing the comparative advertisement, it is necessary that one should avoid to put competitors product in bad light.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539
#IP_Adjutor #Legal #Law #Legalblog #Trademark_infringement #Ipr_update #Copyright_infringement #Ipr_news #Designin_fringement #Patent_infringement #IPR #Intellectual_property_right #Iplaw #Ip_update #Legal_update #Comparative_advertisement #defamation
============
