JUDGMENT

I.A. 8257/2023 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

1. An adorable young girl (no child should be left nameless, and so we shall call her Priya) wants to play with her mother. Priya's mother has, however, been gardening, and her hands are rough and dirty. She washes her hands with Santoor Hand Wash, a product of the defendant. Having washed her hands, she goes to play with her daughter. Priya is amazed at the softness of her mother's hands. While Priya coaxes her mother into continuing to play with her, a voice over announces: "haath itne soft ki chhodne ka mann na kare" (the hands are so soft that you do not feel like leaving them). Priya's mother lovingly caresses her daughter's cheeks. Thus far, one has viewed a warm and endearing picture of parental love and domestic bliss. It is what happens thereafter that has raised the shackles of the plaintiff and provoked him to approach this Court, bristling with ire.

2. After caressing Priya's cheeks, her mother removes, from the shelf, a plastic bottle, labelled "ordinary hand wash". The bottle bears the shape of the plaintiff's Dettol Hand Wash, and Mr. Sibal, learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, frankly acknowledges that the product intended to be shown was indeed the plaintiff's Dettol Hand Wash. Having removed the "ordinary hand wash" from the shelf, Priya's mother replaces it with the defendant's Santoor Hand Wash, with which she had washed her hands. A voice-over announces, simultaneously, "saadhaaran handwash ke muqable naye Santoor Handwash mein hain chandan ke gun jo rakhe haathon ko soft" ("as compared to ordinary hand washes, Santoor Hand Wash has, in it, the benefits of sandal, which keeps the hands soft"). A second voice-over announces "ab har sparsh mein komalta" ("now, softness in every touch").

3. It is this advertisement which is the bone of contention in the present case.

4. The rival products shall be referred to as "Dettol" and "Santoor", for the sake of convenience.

5. The story board of the impugned advertisement is provided thus, for ready reference:

6. The plaintiff Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Limited ("Reckitt", hereinafter), who manufactures Dettol, claims that the advertisement disparages its product. The defendant Wipro Enterprises (P) Ltd. ("Wipro", hereinafter) contends, per contra, that the advertisement does not disparage or denigrate Dettol in any manner, but merely extols Santoor. While acknowledging that, to some extent, the impugned advertisement does compare Santoor with Dettol, Mr. Sibal's contention is that the comparison is within well the permissible limits of comparative advertisement, and that the plaintiff is being hypersensitive.

7. The issue before the court is, therefore, elementary. Over a course of time, the principles relating to comparative advertisement, and its legitimate boundaries, stand delineated by several authoritative judicial pronouncements. All that the court is required to do is to cull out the principles which emerge from the said pronouncements and apply them to the facts of th