Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at some length on the aspect whether the present suit relates to a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (Commercial Courts Act). After the hearing, the counsels were verbally informed that the submission of Mr. Lall – that the disputes arising in the present suit are commercial disputes, has been rejected and, accordingly, a short order adjourning the proceedings was recorded. Counsels were informed that a detailed order would follow. It has, thus, become necessary to record reasons and pass this order. As noticed above, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Chander M. Lall that the dispute arising in the present suit is a commercial dispute, whereas learned counsel for the defendant has opposed the said submission. Depending on the determination whether the dispute raised in the present suit is commercial, or not, would depend the decision whether to transfer the suit to the Court of the concerned District Judge having jurisdiction over the matter, or to retain the suit in this Court as a commercial cause, since the jurisdictional valuation is below Rs. 1 Crore.

2. The suit filed by the plaintiff is directed against the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI). The plaintiff company states that it is engaged in the business of manufacture and supply of Fast Moving Electrical Goods (FMEG). It is engaged, inter alia, in the production of electrical cables and wires. In respect of wires & cables, the plaintiff has adopted/ used the tagline “Wires that don’t catch fire”. It has been running an advertising campaign for its wires & cable products using the said tagline. The plaintiff states in paragraph 2 of the plaint that the suit relates to the illegal direction dated September 15, 2015 issued by the defendant, directing the plaintiff to withdraw or appropriately modify an advertisement of the plaintiff’s advertisement campaign featuring its distinctive tagline and trade mark “Wires that don’t catch fire”, which tagline has be uninterruptedly and continuously used since the year 2007, inter alia, in numerous advertising campaigns issued on national scale on national television channels by the plaintiff, and which is the back bone of the plaintiff’s promotion of its fire retardant wire & cable products.

3. A perusal of paragraph 3 of the plaint shows that the grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendant has issued the impugned directions without following the due process of law, including non-compliance of the principles of natural justice.

4. In paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff states that the defendant has passed a cryptic and non-speaking order dated 16.09.2015 without application of mind and the same does not have sanction of law. The plaintiff’s tag line “Wires that don’t catch fire” was considered to be misleading by exaggeration, and the plaintiff has been asked to modify/withdraw its T.V. Commercial. The communication for modification/withdrawal has been simultaneously sent and forwarded to third parties for compliance.

5. The plaintiff claims in paragraph 5 of the plaint that the impugned order restricts it from exercising, inter alia, its intellectual property right in the tagline created by using rhyming words – as an expression of creativity, which has attained goodwill and reputation by virtue of its long and continuous use. The plaintiff states that creation and use of such tag lines is a well-established and universally accepted practice, as a tool for marketing. Advertising helps customers to know about the benefits they can expect while choosing a product or service. It establishes a company’s brand. The purpose and intent of using a tagline is to connect the brand of a particular manufacturer, and to create a recall value. The tagline creates intellectual rights of commercial value