Back
RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
Emami Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dabur India Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Krishan Kapur J.
1. In a suit for disparagement and infringement, the petitioner seeks interim orders of restraint against the respondent, inter alia, from telecasting, displaying, airing, disseminating a television commercial launched by the respondent on 28 June, 2024 for its product “Dabur Cool King Icey Perfume Talc” (the impugned advertisement).
2. Briefly, the petitioner is inter alia engaged in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) sector and manufactures talcum powder sold under the mark ‘Navratna’ and ‘Dermi Cool’. It is alleged that the market share of both the above products of the petitioner is approximately 17% and 25.5% respectively. It is contended that the colour combination of sea green and white colour skin in relation to talc and the distinctive bottle and cap design alongwith the green and white colour combination in respect of prickly heat powders are exclusively associated with the petitioner’s products. The respondent is a trade rival and manufacturer of FMCG products including talcum powder.
3. The story board of the offending commercial is as follows:
4. It is contended that the impugned advertisement makes a direct reference to the products of t
Descriptors like 'ordinary' or 'sadharan' do not constitute disparagement unless linked to a specific product, balancing trademark protection with freedom of speech.
The use of the term 'Sadharan' in advertisements does not inherently imply disparagement if the context suggests substantial differences between competing products.
Point of law: Under Section 3 (a) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and as agreed by both parties, there can be no Chyawanprash available in the market with 42 ingredients
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while comparative advertising is permissible, an advertiser cannot denigrate or disparage a rival product. The court emphasized the importance....
The main legal point established is that an advertisement should be judged as a whole and from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, and that prima facie disparagement can warrant the grant of an....
Commercial advertisements must promote without disparaging competitors; misleading claims are impermissible under protection afforded to commercial speech.
Advertisements must not disparage competitors’ products; injunctive relief granted to prevent consumer deception.
The court affirmed that amendments changing the nature of a suit are impermissible, allowing the Plaintiffs to rely on existing pleadings for their disparagement claims against Defendant's misleading....
Comparative advertising must not mislead or disparage; advertisements should be truthful and not solely rely on subjective claims, particularly in assessing product efficacy.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
