SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1754

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

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate & Mr.Chander M Lall, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ankur Sangal, Ms.Pragya Mishra, Mr.Raghu Vinayak Sinha & Ms.Asavari Jain, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate with Mr.R. Jawahar Lal, Mr.Siddharth Bawa, Mr.Anuj Garg, Mr.Anirudh Bakhru & Mr.Mohit Sharma, Advocates, for the Defendant.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29 and 30 - Disparagement in advertisements - Plaintiff sought injunction against the use of the defendant's WhatsApp and Print Advertisements claiming they disparaged plaintiff's registered trademarks - The advertising campaign must not mislead or denigrate rival products - The defendant's claim that its product is superior must not imply that the rival's product is inferior. (Paras 21, 70, 86)

(B) Misrepresentation of facts - Plaintiff was found to have misrepresented material facts regarding previous court orders which could affect the case - The principle of clean hands in judicial proceedings is paramount. (Paras 60, 64, 68)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff claimed that defendant's advertisements were misleading and disparaging towards its Amla hair oil product, highlighting similarities and asserting superiority over the plaintiff's product. The plaintiff's advertisements focused on affordability. The defendant's advertisements claimed better efficacy without directly referencing the plaintiff's product.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Print Advertisement did not disparage the plaintiff's product nor refer to it directly, constituting permissible puffery and not actionable disparagement. However, the court observed prima facie evidence that the WhatsApp message misled consumers and directed an injunction on its circulation.

Issues: The court addressed whether the defendant's advertisements disparaged the plaintiff's products and the implications of misrepresentation of prior legal proceedings by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while comparative advertising is protected, it must not mislead consumers or defame rival products; the overall impression upon the reasonable consumer dictates the assessment of disparagement.

Result: The Print Advertisement was upheld as lawful while the WhatsApp Advertisement was injuncted.

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























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top