IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, T.V. THAMILSELVI, JJ.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Haryana - Appellant
Versus
ITC Limited, Rep by its Constituted Attorney, P. Ramkumar - Respondent
O.S.A.(CAD). Nos. 98 to 100 of 2021 & C.M.P. Nos. 17120 to 17122 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2022
| 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 of 2021.
3. The respondent filed a suit in C.S. (Comm. Div.).No.55 of 2021 for the following reliefs:
(i) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise communicating to the public in any manner, any advertisement or any part thereof in any language or any other representation or in any manner or part thereof in any language to be telecast or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any manner which directly or indirectly or in any manner, disparages and/or denigrates the plaintiff’s NIMYLE branded goods and/or category of goods to which it belongs;
(ii) permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their management, members, affiliates, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions from using in relation to the defendant’s goods in any manner by way of advertisement or any manner whatsoever, the words “NIMYLE” or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar thereto that infringes the plaintiff’s registered trademark/label NIMYLE or from using any other depiction of the product NIMYLE or any trade dress or distinctive feature thereof;
(iii) an order directing the defendant to deliver up to the plaintiff for destruction, all master tapes, CDs, DVDs or any other copies/material containing the disparaging advertisements and for other reliefs.
4. In the said suit, the respondent filed an application in O.A.No.554 of 2021 to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent from telecasting, broadcasting, publishing, disseminating or otherwise communicating to the public in any manner, any advertisement or any part thereof or any other advertisements of a similar nature in any language or any other representation or in any manner or part thereof or any other advertisement of a similar nature to be telecast or broadcast or communicated to the public or published in any manner which directly or indirectly or in any manner, disparages and/or denigrates the applicant’s NIMYLE brand and/or goods bearing the NIMYLE trademark in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
4.1. The respondent filed an application in O.A.No.555 of 2021 to grant an interim injunction restraining the respondent from using in relation to the defendant’s goods in any manner by way of advertisement or any manner whatsoever, the words “NIMYLE” or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar ther
AI
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....
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
The use of the term 'Sadharan' in advertisements does not inherently imply disparagement if the context suggests substantial differences between competing products.
The main legal point established is that an advertisement should be judged as a whole and from the perspective of a reasonable consumer, and that prima facie disparagement can warrant the grant of an....
Commercial advertisements must promote without disparaging competitors; misleading claims are impermissible under protection afforded to commercial speech.
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.