The main legal point established in the judgment is that while comparative advertising is permissible, an advertiser cannot denigrate or disparage a rival product. The court emphasized the importance of examining the intent, manner, and overall effect of the advertisement to determine disparagement.

JUDGMENT

Jayant Nath, J. - IA No.8999/2021

1. This application is filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking the following reliefs:

"A. The Defendant, its directors, principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns be restrained by an ex-parte ad interim and interim injunction from:

i. Telecasting/ broadcasting/ publishing or otherwise howsoever, communicating to the public any of the Impugned advertisements or any part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature in any language or in any manner causing the Impugned advertisement or any part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature to be telecast or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any media including digital/electronic or social media or in any other manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs and their products sold under the trade mark HARPIC;

ii. Using the depiction of the Plaintiffs" product or any other product deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiffs" in its advertisement or in any other manner infringing the Plaintiff"s registered trademarks and/or disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and its product sold under the trade mark HARPIC.

iii. Using any other indicia whatsoever to associate with/ depict the Plaintiffs or their products in its advertisements issued in any and all media whatsoever including the electronic media;

B. The Defendant, its directors, principals, proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, representatives and assigns be directed to issue a clarificatory advertisement in video and print / digital formats in an effort to repair the loss of reputation caused to the Plaintiff"s HARPIC branded product; and

C. Cost of the suit be awarded to the Plaintiff."

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that it is an internationally renowned company and is involved in the manufacturing of a famous toilet cleaner under the trademark "HARPIC" in India since 2001. It is stated that HARPIC is a household name in the category of toilet cleaners and the most widely used toilet cleaner brand in the country. It is pointed out that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark "HARPIC" in class 3 bearing registration No.347055 dated 15.03.1979. Details of registrations of the trademark are given in para 17 of the plaint. It is also stated that apart from the above registrations, the plaintiff has also filed applications for registration of the unique and distinctive bottle shape of the plaintiff"s HARPIC branded products in India in class 1 and in class 5. The applications are pending before the Trade Mark Registry.

3. The present dispute concerns an alleged advertisement blitzkrieg by the defendant allegedly to vilify, denigrate and defame the plaintiff"s HARPIC toilet cleaner. It is stated that five advertisements have been launched by the defendant over the weekend which completely trash the plaintiff"s HARPIC brand, declaring it to be ineffective and useless for the purposes that it is used for. It is stated that the advertisement campaign is designed to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the "HARPIC" branded toilet cleaner of the plaintiff, a product which represents 77.2% value market share for toilet cleaners, and inviting consumers to substitute the same with the defendant"s DOMEX, a product which has a mere 5.3% market share.

4. The first advertisement is a Television Commercial which was launched on 23.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the "TVC). The screenshots of the TVC as reproduced in the plaint are as follows:

5. It is claimed that the impugned advertisement is designed to denigrate and defame the plaintiff"s HARPIC branded toilet cleaners. The clear portrayal is that use of HARPIC leads to bad odour and smell in the bathroom. The impugned advertisement ridicules HARPIC consumers and prompts them to immediately shift their preferences to DOMEX. It gives