The impugned representations must be untrue, made maliciously, and result in special damage for an action of malicious falsehood to succeed. Bald pleadings alluding to degradation of reputation and loss would not suffice for an injunction.

Rajiv Shakdher, J.:--

IA No. 11819/2014 (u/Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 r/w Section 151, CPC for stay)

1. The present suit has been filed to seek a decree of permanent injunction qua the defendant against what the plaintiff construes as false, misleading and disparaging representations. The representations, according to the plaintiff, are essentially in the form of advertisements/internet representations. The captioned application, which is what I am concerned with presently, is filed in aid of the reliefs claimed in the suit.

1.1 The suit, as framed, is in the nature of trade libel, which is also interchangeably, referred to as an action for injurious falsehood or, more appropriately, an action for malicious falsehood.

1.2 The peculiarity of the present action is that the impugned advertisements are generic in nature which, while comparing two rival products do not specifically name the plaintiff. The two rival products being Light Emitting Diode (hereafter referred to as LED bulbs) and Compact Florescent Lamps (hereafter referred to as the CFL bulbs).

1.3 This aspect becomes even more involved by virtue of the fact that the advertisements issued by the defendant, which extols the virtues of LED bulbs over those of CFL bulbs; is a product, which is also manufactured by the plaintiff. There is, however, no averment in the plaint with regard to the fact that the plaintiff is also in the business of manufacturing LED bulbs. On the other hand, the plaintiff, which apart from LED bulbs also manufactures CFL bulbs, has approached the Court for grant of injunction against the defendant on the ground that the representations made qua CFL bulbs in the impugned advertisement, are false and misleading.

1.4 It is in this context that the plaintiff claims that the impugned advertisements, though generic in nature, affects its goodwill and market reputation. In support of this assertion, the plaintiff has made the following averments that:

(i) It is the largest manufacturer of the CFL bulbs having, approximately, 30% of the market share.

(ii) It is the only player in the business with direct reach in 1000 semi-urban markets and has, therefore, invested large sums of money to support conventional lighting distribution in these markets.

(iii) Nearly 13% of the plaintiff’s annual turnover comprises CFL bulbs.

(iv) The plaintiff has the biggest CFL manufacturing unit; which is located at Mohali and is capable of producing nearly six (6) million CFL bulbs per month. Towards this end, it has engaged two thousand (2000) permanent and temporary employees, which is sup­ported by a full-fledged quality and development department.

2. The plaintiff is, as indicated above, essentially, aggrieved by the following impugned advertisement dated 19.5.2014, published in Dainik Bhaskar:

‘Insert photo sketch’

2.1 This apart the plaintiff is also aggrieved, as stated above, by what it claims are a false and misleading averments made by the defendants on its website: http:/syskaledlights.com.

2.2 According to the plaintiff, the aforementioned advertisement issued by the defendant makes the following false and/or misleading representations, while extolling the virtues of the LED bulbs manufactured and sold by it under the brand name “SYSKA”:

(i) 5 watt SYSKA LED is equal to any 15 watt CFL bulb.

(ii) The price of 5 watt SYSKA LED is equal to any 15 watt CFL bulb.

(iii) SYSKA 5 watt LED lasts up to 50,000 hours.

(iv) “Its game over for CLF.”

3. In order to demonstrate the falsity of the defendant’s claim, the following assertions are made by the plaintiff:

(i) The defendant’s 5 watt LED bulb is almost five (5) times the cost of a 15 watt CFL bulb sold by various other manufacturers in India and is seven (7) times the cost of a 14 watt CFL bulb manufactured by the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff manufactures only fourteen (14) watt CFL bulbs and not fifteen (15) watt bulbs. The price of defendant’s five (5) watt LED bulb is Rs. 700/- as opposed to the price range of a 14/