SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Del) 428

High Court Of Delhi
DABUR INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
EMAMI LIMITED - Respondent
I.A. 2124 of 2004
Decided On : 05/28/2004

Advocates Appeared:
A.S.CHANDHIOK, ARJUN BHANDARI, ARUN SINHA, SUDHIR K.MAKKAR, V.P.Singh

Headnote:Intellectual Property Rights – temporary injunction - Order 29 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – suit filed seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant from telecasting advertisement of their product –plaintiff contended that advertisement in commercial shown led to negative campaigning of plaintiffs product – after consideration of advertisement shown by defendant it found that advertisement adversely affected product of plaintiff – even if no direct reference to plaintiffs product and reference made to entire class of product - disparagement to plaintiffs product possible – element of insinuation present in advertisement against user of product – temporary injunction granted.

MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

( 1 ) BY this order, I propose to dispose of the application, which is filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff is a leading manufacturer of a large range of pharmaceutical products, toiletries, ayurvedic and other medicinal preparations. The plaintiff is manufacturing and marketing its products under the brand name dabur , which is a well-known brand in India and abroad. The plaintiff in the course of its business also manufactures and markets Dabur Chayawanprash, which is being sold not only in India but also in various other countries. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has a market share of 63% of the total market of Chayawanprash through India. Chayawanprash , which is an ayurvedic formation, is primarily a health tonic and has therapeutic qualities for enhancing the immunity against various diseases.

( 2 ) THE defendant is also engaged in the manufacture of various ayurvedic formulations including Chayawanprash. The defendant is manufacturing the said Chayawanprash under the brand name Himani Sona-Chandi Chayawanprash. The defendant has very recently introduced a new product in the market , namely, Himani Sona-Chandi Amritprash and the same is being now advertised on the audio visual media and the T. V commercial of the said product is presently being aired on Zee TV, Aaj Tak, Sony Mex, Zee Cinema etc.

( 3 ) IT is contended in the plaint by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has very recently come across a T. V commercial of Himani Sona-Chandi Amritprash whereby the defendant seeks to disparage the product of the plaintiff, namely, Dabur Chayawanprash. The said T. V commercial stars the popular film star Sunny Deol and the visual depicts the Hero (Sunny Deol) dressed up as an Army outfit walking through the desert with another Army officer. Also shown in the commercial is a camel walking with the two officers. The T. V commercial depicts that on account of excessive heat, the other commander faints and the hero i. e Sunny Deol, who was walking ahead of him comes back running to rescue the fainted officer, puts him on his shoulder and walks to the camp. The commercial shows the hero carrying a bottle of Himani Sona-Chandi Amritprash. Towards the end of the commercial the hero while holding the bottle of Himani Amritprahs in his hand declares " GARMION MEIN CHYAWANPRASH BHOOL JAO, HIMANI SONA-CHANDI Amritprash KHAO. The said sentence translated into English would read as follows:- "forget CHYAWANPRASH IN SUMMERS, EAT Amritprash INSTEAD". In the light of the aforesaid background facts, it was contended by the counsel for the plaintiff that the aforesaid advertisement in the commercial shown is a negative campaigning of the product of the plaintiff and that there is an effort on the part of the defendant of insinuating the product of the plaintiff. It was submitted that the clear message that is being sent by airing the said T. V commercial is that consumption of chyawanprash is not advisable during summer season and that Amritprash is more effective substitute of chyawanprash for summer season. It was submitted that the aforesaid advertisement/t. V commercial of the product of the defendant is deceptive and dubious and an malafide attempt to do negative campaign and bringing in insinuating advertisement campaign against the product of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE contention of the counsel for defendant on the other hand was that neither the aforesaid advertisement could be said to be defamatory nor is a measure of negative campaigning. It was submitted that the defendant itself is manufacturing and marketing Chayawanprash, which is to be used in the winter months and not in the summer months and, therefore, only a general statement made by the defendant through the aforesaid commercial/tv advertisement. It was also submitted that chyawanprash is a generic word and there is no exclusivity which cou










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top