Back
M. DURAISWAMY, T. V. THAMILSELVI
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Haryana – Appellant
Versus
ITC Limited, Rep by its Constituted Attorney, P. Ramkumar – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. relief sought includes injunction and destruction of advertisements. (Para 3) |
| 2. respondent seeks interim prevention against harmful advertising. (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. respondent claims unfair competition and misleading advertisement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's acknowledgment of the need for evidence in advertising claims. (Para 7 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. interim injunction granted due to prima facie disparagement. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. the need to balance freedom of expression with protections against false claims. (Para 16) |
| 7. final decision against allowing continued airing of potentially misleading advertisements. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act , 2015 against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2021 in O.A.Nos.554 to 556 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm. Div.) No.55 of 2021.)
Common Judgment
M. Duraiswamy, J.
1. Since the facts relating to the filing of the Original Side Appeals are common, all the three appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The above Original Side Appeals have been filed by the appellant as against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.10.2021 made in O.A.Nos.554 to 556 of 2021 in C.S.(Comm.Div.) No.55
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
