IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Marico Limited – Appellant
Versus
Dabur India Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 471 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023
JUDGMENT
I.As. 10716/2022, 11057/2022, & 12154/2022
1. I.A. No. 10716/2022 has been filed by the plaintiff inter alia praying for the grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, its directors, principals proprietor, partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors, shopkeepers, franchisees, licensees, representatives and assigns from communicating to public or otherwise sharing, forwarding the defendant's WhatsApp Advertisement or the defendant's Print Advertisement or any part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature in any language or in any manner disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's product `Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil' and the registered Nihar trade marks.
2. On the other hand, I.A. No. 11057/2022 has been filed by the defendant seeking vacation of the ad-interim order of injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff vide order dated 13.07.2022.
3. At the outset, it is important to note that the operation of the ad interim order dated 13.07.2022 was suspended vide order dated 19.07.2022. The plaintiff has thereafter filed I.A. No. 12154/2022 praying that strict action be taken against the defendant for making a false statement and for the revival of the ad interim injunction on the impugned Print Advertisement granted on 13.07.2022.
4. As the three applications raise similar issues, they are being addendum and disposed of by this common order.
5. The impugned WhatsApp Advertisement is reproduced herein below:
[IMG]
6. The impugned Print Advertisement is reproduced herein below:
[IMG]
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
i) Case of the plaintiff
7. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is one of the leading players in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (in short `FMCG') market in India and manufactures as well as markets inter alia packaged coconut oil, hair oil, personal care product(s) and food products under its portfolio of various well-known and established household brands such as "Nihar", "Parachute", "Saffola", "Livon", "Hair & Care", "Silk-N-Shine", among others.
8. The plaintiff-company states that its product(s) and brands have built up and enjoy a wide, immense, and enviable reputation and goodwill under its aforesaid brands.
9. The plaintiff states that its mark `NIHAR. was originally owned by Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd., which was manufacturing and marketing Filter Coconut Oil under the brand "TATA NIHAR". In 1994, the trade mark `NIHAR. was acquired by Hindustan Lever Limited, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. Subsequently, by virtue of an assignment deed between the plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest dated 17.02.2006, the plaintiff-company became the owner of the trade mark `NIHAR..
10. It is asserted by the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the market leader by volume in the Amla Hair Oil segment in the country, and currently has a market share by volume of 42.3% for MAT in May 2022. It is further asserted that the plaintiff has gained substantial goodwill and reputation for its Amla Hair Oil product.
11. The plaintiff states that the plaintiff's product `NIHAR. had an annual net revenue of Rs.52,613.22 Lakhs in the financial year 2021-22. The plaintiff also states that it has expended advertisement and sales promotional expenses of Rs.4,164.08 Lakhs for the financial year 2021-22 for the said product.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that on July 11, 2022, the plaintiff came to know about a WhatsApp message being circulated in the market which was defaming and denigrating the plaintiff's product "Nihar Naturals Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil", and further mentioned about a disparaging Print Advertisement of the defendant for its "Dabur Amla Hair Oil" product, which was supposed to be released on 12.07.2022.
13. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit praying for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from publishing or circulating the impugned WhatsApp and Print Advertisements.
ii) Case of the
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....
The use of the term 'Sadharan' in advertisements does not inherently imply disparagement if the context suggests substantial differences between competing products.
Point of law: Under Section 3 (a) of the Drugs & Cosmetic Act, 1940 and as agreed by both parties, there can be no Chyawanprash available in the market with 42 ingredients
Advertisements must not disparage competitors’ products; injunctive relief granted to prevent consumer deception.
The court affirmed that amendments changing the nature of a suit are impermissible, allowing the Plaintiffs to rely on existing pleadings for their disparagement claims against Defendant's misleading....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.