I.A. No. 6421/2016 (under Section 149 CPC)

1. Let the plaintiff make up the deficiency in the court fee within one week from today.

I.A. stands disposed of.

CS(OS) No.251/2016 and I.A. No.6420/2016 (stay)

2. This application is filed by the plaintiff in this suit for injunction and damages against the stated disparaging video advertisement issued by the defendant. Plaintiff is Gillette India Ltd which manufactures razors for hair removal and plaintiff sells these razors under the trademark VENUS and SIMPLY VENUS. Plaintiff’s razors have a typical light blue colour. Defendant/Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd manufactures hair removal creams and sells the said hair removal creams under the trademark “VEET”. The issue to be decided by this Court is the grant of ad interim injunction, till the disposal of this injunction application, against the defendant airing the impugned advertisement which as per the plaintiff is disparaging and contains falsehood. The relief clauses of the present application read as under:-

“a. pass an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents, advertisers, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns or otherwise howsoever, from issuing, broadcasting, publishing or printing the Impugned Advertisement or in any other manner directly or indirectly, disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and any of its products in “hair removal category” including through any other advertisements and in all media whatsoever including electronic and/or print media; and

b. pass an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against restraining the Defendant, its directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, advertisers, franchisees, representatives and assigns or otherwise howsoever from issuing, broadcasting, publishing or printing the Impugned Advertisement or in any other manner directly or indirectly disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and any of its products in “hair removal category” including through any other advertisements and in all media whatsoever including electronic and/or print media; and

c. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The suit and the interim application came up for the first time on 20.5.2016 when appearance was put in on behalf of the defendant who had lodged a Caveat. Crystallizing the issues with respect to claim of the plaintiff for interim injunction, on the said date the following order was passed:-

“I.A.No.6423/2016 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

I.A stands disposed of.

CAVEAT No. 436/2016

Since counsel for the caveator has entered appearance, the caveat stands discharged.

CS(OS) 251/2016 and I.A. Nos. 6420-22/2016

1. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has been heard with respect to the entitlement or otherwise of the plaintiff to grant of ex parte interim orders or ad interim orders. On behalf of the plaintiff it was argued that the impugned advertisement deliberates and disparages the product of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is aggrieved, inter alia, on account of the following facts:-

(i) The razor shown in the impugned advertisement being of blue colour and which will necessarily have co-relation only to the plaintiff’s razor because plaintiff’s razors are blue in colour and no other company sells razor of blue in colour.

(ii) In the impugned advertisement disclaimer of ordinary razors is shown in extremely fine print, whereas it should be bolder as to be seen in normal way by the ordinary customer.

(iii) The defendant while showing a razor for hair removal in the impugned advertisement does not show the razor with use of foam, etc., and which use of foam is a necessary pre-condition before use of the razor of the plaintiff and as provided in the printed instructions on the product of the plaintiff.

(iv) Defenda