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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1157

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

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Chander Lal, Senior Counsel, R. Saravana Kumar, E. Veda Bagath Singh, R. Jawahar Lal, Nancy Roy, Advocates. For the Respondent:Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Abishek Manu Singhvi, C. Mani Shankar, Senior Counsels, Arun C. Mohan, Amit Bhandari, K.S. Suresh, Karthik Selvaraj, Chandini Pradeep Kumar, Advocates.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Disparagement in advertisement - The respondent sought permanent injunction against the appellant for disparaging the NIMYLE brand through advertisements promoting LIZOL. The court emphasized the necessity of fair competition without defaming rivals. The court granted interim relief, underlining the irreversible damage caused by disparagement and established that the defense of truth must be substantiated in the trial. (Paras 5, 12, 17, 18)

(B) Comparative Advertising - Right to free speech - While comparative advertising is permitted, it cannot slander competitors. The court reiterated that advertising must not mislead or provide false statements about rival products’ efficacy, holding that a prima facie case of disparagement was made out. (Paras 9, 10, 14, 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
The respondent claimed that the appellant’s advertisements falsely denigrated its herbal floor cleaner NIMYLE by promoting LIZOL as superior, using misleading comparisons regarding germ efficacy. The appellant defended its position claiming the advertisement was truthful.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the advertisements disparaged the respondent's product, thereby ruling that this constituted actionable defamation under suitable law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the advertisements constituted disparagement and whether the such claims could be justified.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that unsubstantiated claims in advertising do not fall under protected speech and must not mislead consumers.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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