The use of the term 'Sadharan' in advertisements does not inherently imply disparagement if the context suggests substantial differences between competing products.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present appeal assails an order dated January 17, 2025 passed in-IP-COM No.18 of 2024 along with GA-COM 1 of 2024 and GA-COM 2 of 2024, modifying a previous order dated July 11, 2024 passed in the said suit granting ad interim injunction restraining the respondent, its men, servants, agents, representatives and/or anyone claiming through the respondent from displaying and/or playing and/or airing and/or telecasting their advertisements for the product “Cool King” by showing the bottle/container of the products “Dermi Cool” and/or “Navratna” of the petitioner/appellant and by referring to the same as “Sadharan”. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has modified the ad interim order dated July 11, 2025 to the extent that there shall be an interim order of restraint of the impugned advertisement, by making it clear that the order of restraint shall apply to the impugned advertisement as a whole and not any portion or any part or word of the impugned advertisement. In the impugned order, it was inter alia observed that the use of the word “ordinary” or “Sadharan” per se, without any identification, cannot be interpreted to be defamatory or disparaging.

2. The suit in which the impugned order was passed has been instituted by the appellant Emami Limited alleging disparagement of its product, a prickly heat powder, marketed under the name and style of “Dermi Cool” and “Navratna”. In the impugned advertisement, a popular actor of the Hindi Film Industry is seen to promote the product of the defendant/respondent, Dabur India Limited, by the name of “Cool King”, which is supposedly a similar product as the appellant's. At the inception of the advertisement, which is a video clip widely broadcast in television as well as audio visual media across social platforms, certain ladies are shown to spew fire due to the extreme heat. Apparently, ice crystals subsequently drop from the sky. A man, who was sweltering in the previous heat waves, was carrying a bottle, allegedly resembling the bottle of the plaintiff's products, over the shape and design of which the plaintiff has trademarks. Subsequently, coinciding with the ice crystals, the popular film actor arrives at the scene with a bottle of the defendant's product, who labels the earlier bottle as “Sadharan” (ordinary) and providing a viable better alternative in the defendant's product. Subsequently, the earlier product is replaced by the product of the defendant by the protagonist, the man who was earlier sweltering in the heat, and the defendant's product accepted as the better one.

3. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the use of the word “Sadharan”, in the context of the advertisement, demeans and denigrates the product of the plaintiff/appellant. The resemblance between the bottle shown by the protagonist as “Sadharan” with the unique tapering bottle of the plaintiff/appellant, which has a typical notch on the slanting cap of green colour, is striking. It is argued that since the plaintiff is the market leader through its two products as mentioned earlier, the diss