Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 4345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S. Rajeswaran, J.
Annamalayar Agencies - Appellant
Versus
VVS and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Others - Respondents
O.A. No. 645 of 2006 in C.S. No. 603 of 2006
Decided On : 05-01-2007
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Arvind P. Datar for S. Motilal
For the Respondent: R. Krishnamurthy for K. Harishankar
The main legal point established in the judgment is that generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying it is objectionable, and the court considered various legal principles from cited cases to decide on the injunction application.
Headnote:
Injunction - Disparaging Advertisements - AIR 2005 Del 102, 1975 (2) ALL ER 599, Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. (1998) 1 SCC 720, Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Wipro Limited (2006) 129 DLT 265, Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd. (2006) 128 DLT 81 - S. Rajeswaran, J.
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from telecasting disparaging advertisements against their product, Parachute coconut oil. The Plaintiff claimed that the advertisements by the 1st Defendant were an attempt to discredit their product and sought various reliefs including special damages for loss of sale and revenue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 2nd and 3rd advertisements disparaged the Plaintiff's product and granted an interim injunction against their telecast. The court dismissed the injunction application with respect to the 1st advertisement. The court did not consider the issues of locus standi and maintainability of the suit at this stage.
Issues: The issues included the disparaging nature of the advertisements, the locus standi of the Plaintiff, and the maintainability of the suit under the Indian Partnership Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying it is objectionable. It also emphasized the immediate impact of visual media advertisements and the need to draw a line between actionable and non-actionable statements. The court considered various legal principles from cited cases to decide on the injunction application.
Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction against the telecast of the 2nd and 3rd advertisements, finding that they disparaged the Plaintiff's product. The court dismissed the injunction application with respect to the 1st advertisement and did not consider the larger issues of locus standi and maintainability at this stage.
ORDER :
S. Rajeswaran, J.
This application has been filed by the Plaintiff for an order of interim injunction restraining Respondents its servants agents, assigns or any other persons claiming under them from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned advertisement/television commercial in any television channel, the text/story board version of which is filed in English translation as plaint document Nos. 5, 6 and 7 or any other modification, variation or adaptation thereof, pending disposal of the suit.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are described in the suit.
3. The Plaintiff filed the above suit for the following reliefs:
a. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants its servants, agents, assigns or any other persons claiming under them from in any manner continuing the telecast of the impugned advertisement/television (commercial in any television) channel the text/story board version of which is filed in English translation as plaint document Nos. 5, 6 and 7 or any other modification variation or adaptation thereof.
b. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, servants, agents or assigns or any other person claiming under them from in any manner telecasting or otherwise publishing any advertisement that in any manner disparages the brand Parachute.
c. Grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their men, servants, agents, assigns, or any other person claiming under them from in any manner issuing any advertisement that make any claims of superior or general benefits of its product as compared to the brand Parachute unless such claims are clearly established by clinical trials conducted by independent and reputed agency.
d. Award special damages of Rs. 25,00,000 for the loss of sale and revenue or such higher amount as may be claimed by the Plaintiff at a later date and as may be determined by this Court upon enquiry.
e. Order delivery up for destruction the Production Master Copy and the Artworks/advertisement material of the impugned advertisements.
4. According to the Plaintiff they are one of the oldest distributors of hair care and edible oil products of Marico Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture of coconut oil, edible oils, hair and skin care solutions etc. Among other products Parachute coconut oil which is manufactured by Marico is one of the largest packaged coconut oil brands and it is one of the 100 most trusted brands in India.
5. The Plaintiff entered into an agreement dated 24.12.2005 with Marico and under this agreement the Plaintiff has been authorised to take necessary legal proceedings in this State against any persons who infringes or misuses the trade mark Parachute or in any manner disparages the brand name Parachute.
6. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the 1st Defendant company which manufactures VVD gold coconut oil issued 3 advertisement through TV channels of Defendants 2 to 4 and thereby disparaged the Plaintiff's product, namely, Parachute. Hence the above application has been filed for an interim injunction.
7. The offending advertisements, according to the Plaintiff, are that No. 1, in which too tender coconuts, one in green colour and another in blue colour are shown and an actress wearing green dress appears on the scene and asks a question i.e., which is natural and then, she herself picks up a green coconut and says that it is natural.
8. In the advertisement No. 2, an actress wearing green dress picks up one of the green colour plastic bottles of VVD arranged in a shelf and says this is 100% pure and natural and this is what I want. Then the next shot shows an actress wearing green dress in the foreground and the lady wearing blue saree in the background. The lady wearing blue saree has a blue colour bottle in her left hand and a VVD bottle in her right hand. She looks at the blue bottle which is in her left hand and shakes her head disapprovingly and puts the
