ORDER :

G.S. Singhvi, Chairman

Whether the advertisements issued by the respondent showing comparison of its product, namely Dettol with Betadine Standardised Solution manufactured by the complainant, falls within the ambit of Section 36-A(1)(x) is the question, which arises for consideration in this complaint filed sometime in April, 2001 under Section 36-B(d) read with Section 36-A(1)(i), (vi), (x) and Section 2(o) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (in short, ‘the Act’) and Regulations 51 and 75 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Regulations, 1991 (in short, ‘the Regulations’).

2. The complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing medicines in India including Betadine Standardised Solution, which is sold in its final form as per the specifications of the Indian Pharmacopoeia and is supposed to be used without dilution. The respondent, which was earlier known as Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. is engaged in manufacturing and marketing pharmaceutical preparations including Dettol, which is an antiseptic.

3. In March, 2000 edition of the Journal of Indian Medical Association, an advertisement was got published by the respondent showing comparison of Dettol with other antiseptics/ disinfectants including Betadine Antiseptic Solution. The scanned copy of the advertisement is reproduced below:

“Logo omitted”

4. Another advertisement was issued by the respondent in the form of a chart showing relative efficacy of Dettol vis-a-vis Betadine in certain concentrations. The scanned copy of the second advertisement is also reproduced below:

“Logo omitted”

5. Shri Goutam Bhattacharya, who was then working as Product Executive of the complainant came to know about the above reproduced chart when he saw the brochure in Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. He immediately addressed letter dated 13.11.2000 to Shri Man Mohan Singh Chug, Marketing Manager of the complainant, who recorded a note that Dettol is projecting wrong information. The letter of Shri Goutam Bhattacharya along with note dated 16.11.2000 recorded by Shri Man Mohan Singh Chug is reproduced below:

6. The complainant sent notice dated 16.10.2000 to the respondent and A. Wood and D. Payne, who authored the research paper to which reference was made in the first advertisement stating that the advertisements were misleading and was intended to disparage Betadine Antiseptic Solution vis-a-vis Dettol. The complainant claimed that even though a footnote was given below the box showing comparison of Dettol and other antiseptics/disinfectants to clarify that Betadin Antiseptic Solution had not been tested in organic soil, the font thereof was so small that it could not attract the attention of the purchasers. After waiting for almost three months, the complain