The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition of slandering a rival product as bad and the entitlement of a plaintiff to seek an injunction against advertisements disparaging the generic product, even without specific identification.

( 1 ) TRADE RIVALRIES WHICH LEAD TO ADVERTISEMENTS IN which THE PRODUCT OF AN ADVERTISER IS EXTOLLED AND THE rival PRODUCT DEPRECATED HAVE LED TO THIS SUIT BY THE plaintiff DABUR INDIA LTD. WHO MAKES DABUR LAL DANT manjan POWDER, AGAINST THE DEFENDANT COLGATE PALMOLIVE india LTD. WHO MANUFACTURE COLGATE TOOTH POWDER. THIS suit AND THIS APPLICATION FOR INTERIM INJUNCTION IS occasioned BY AN ADVERTISEMENT AIRED ON THE VISUAL MEDIA by THE DEFENDANT. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE TV advertisement COMPLAINED OF IS THAT A CINE STAR SUNIL shetty IS SEEN STOPPING THE PURCHASERS OF LAL DANT MANJAN powders. HE FURTHER INFORM THEM OF THE ILL EFFECTS OF such LAL DANT MANJAN BY RUBBING IT ON THE PURCHASER s spectacles WHICH LEAVES MARKS WHICH ARE TERMED BY SUNIL shetty AS BEING AKIN TO SANDPAPERING. HE ALSO ENDORSES the DEFENDANT COLGATE s TOOTH POWDER AS BEING 16 TIMES less ABRASIVE AND NON DAMAGING TO THE SPECTACLES. HE IS heard TELLING THE PURCHASER THAT IT IS EASY TO CHANGE spectacles BUT NOT THE TEETH.

( 2 ) THE PLAINTIFF s CLAIM AS PER THE PLEAS OF SHRI arun JAITLEY, SENIOR ADVOCATE IS THAT :-

(A) THE IMPUGNED ADVERTISEMENT RUNS DOWN ALL LAL dant MANJAN TOOTH POWDERS AS SEVERELY DETRIMENTAL TO dental HEALTH AND IN PARTICULAR DAMAGING THE TOOTH enamel.

(B) THE PLAINTIFF HAS THE LION s SHARE 80% OF THE ayurvedic TOOTH POWDER TRADE AND IS DIRECTLY HIT BY THIS advertisement AS THE PRINCIPAL PRODUCER, BY THE denigration OF THE GENERIC PRODUCT LAL DANT MANJAN. IT has A TURNOVER OF ABOUT RS. 150 CRORES FOR THE LAL DANT manjan TOOTH POWDER AND ITS ADVERTISING BUDGET FOR THE said PRODUCT IS ABOUT RS. 4 CRORES. IN ANY EVENT THE defendants ADVERTISEMENT AFFECTS THE PLAINTIFF THE MOST and HENCE IT IS ENTITLED TO VENTILATE ITS GRIEVANCES. WHILE THE ADVERTISEMENT DOES NOT DIRECTLY REFER TO DABUR dant MANJAN, I. E. THE PLAINTIFF s PRODUCT, THE VISUAL representation IN THE OFFENDING ADVERTISEMENT LEAVES NO manner OF DOUBT AS THE PRODUCT BEING REFERRED TO BEING, lal DANT MANJAN MANUFACTURED AND MARKETED BY THE plaintiff s.

(C) THE POSITION OF LAW IN RESPECT OF DISPARAGING advertisements OF RIVAL PRODUCTS IS WELL SETTLED BY TWO judgments OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGES OF THIS COURT reported IN 1996 PTC (16) 393 RECKITT and COLEMAN VS. KIWI t. T. K. LTD. AND IN IA NO. 2124/2004 IN CS (OS) 453 OF 2004 dated 28th MAY, 2004 IN DABUR INDIA VS. EMAMI. THE SAID position OF LAW IS AS UNDER:- i. A TRADESMAN IS ENTITLED TO DECLARE HIS GOODS TO BE BEST in THE WORDS EVEN THOUGH THE DECLARATION IS UNTRUE.

II. HE CAN ALSO SAY THAT MY 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 THE OTHERS.

IV. HE, HOWEVER, CANNOT WHILE SAYING 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.

V. IF THERE IS NO DEFAMATION, TO THE GOODS OR TO THE manufacturer OF SUCH GOODS NO ACTION LIES, BUT IF THERE is SUCH DEFAMATION, AN ACTION LIES AND IF AN ACTION LIES for RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR DEFAMATION, THEN THE COURT IS also COMPETENT TO GRANT AN ORDER OF INJUNCTION restraining REPETITION OF SUCH DEFAMATION.

(D) THE USE GENERICALLY/specifically OF THE plaintiff s PRODUCT FOR A COMPARISON WITH THE RIVAL product OF THE PLAINTIFF AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF THE intellectual PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PLAINTIFF.

(E) IN ANY EVENT SECTION 29 (8) (A)and (C) OF THE TRADE marks ACT, 1999 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) DOES not PERMIT THE INFRINGEMENT OF A REGISTERED TRADE MARK such AS THE PLAINTIFF BY THE DEFENDANT BY AN advertisement CONTRARY TO HONEST PRACTICES IN INDUSTRIAL or COMMERCIAL MATTERS AND IS ALSO AGAINST THE REPUTATION of THE REGISTERED TRADE MARK OF THE PLAINTIFFS. SECTION 29 (8) (A