IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.MAHADEVAN, MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, JJ.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Advertising Standards Council of India - Respondent
O.S.A. Nos.242 and 243 of 2023 and C.M.P. Nos.28580, 28581, 28582, 28583 and 28585 of 2023
Decided on : 17-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
Prayer: Original Side Appeals filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set side the order of this Court dated 16.11.2023 made in O.A.Nos.563 and 564 of 2023 in C.S.No.110 of 2023.
These Original Side Appeals have been filed challenging the order of the learned Judge insofar as it rejects the applications filed by the appellant herein praying for interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent/defendant from creating impediments in the broadcasting of the advertisement of the appellant/plaintiff which is the subject matter of the suit and from entertaining or adjudicating upon the complaints against the advertisement of the appellant/plaintiff on the premise that the suit has been filed without any cause of action and jurisdiction.
2. BRIEF FACTS:
a) About the parties to the proceeding :
2.1. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited viz., the appellant herein, is an internationally renowned corporation and through its subsidiaries and affiliate companies operate in several countries around the world. The business comprises of manufacture and sales of various consumer and health care products including antiseptic liquid, toilet care products, surface care products, pharmaceuticals, insecticides and food products which bear trademarks. Some of them being DETTOL, HARPIC, VEET, MORTEIN and CHERRY BLOSSOM. The appellant is involved in the manufacture of mosquito repellents and Rat Kill products for over 150 years.
2.2. Advertisement Standard Council of India (hereinafter referred to as “ASCI”) viz., the 1st respondent herein is a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956, having its permanent office in Mumbai. It is stated that it is a not-for-profit company founded in the year 1985 as a “voluntary self-regulation body for the advertising industry”. It is further stated that ASCI has been in existence for more than 35 years and has been monitoring, administering and promoting the standards of advertising practices in India. It scrutinizes advertisements in all mediums including Digital Space such as Television, YouTube etc.
2.3. It is stated that the main constituents of the advertising industry viz., advertisers, advertising agencies, media and allied/ancillary trades and professions associated with advertising came together to establish ASCI. ASCI has created a Code for Self-regulation of Advertising Content in India (hereinafter referred to as “ASCI Code”) based on global best practices and is universal in appeal and application. Its object is to promote high standards of advertising practice in India and to protect consumer interest in respect of truthfulness and honesty of representations and claims made through advertisements. It may be relevant to note that the advertising code of selfregulatory bodies takes varying forms in different countries, but its underlying ethos remains the same; that an advertisement should be legal, honest and truthful and ought to follow generally accepted norms and standards of public decency.
2.4. ASCI provides a machinery through an independent body which is known as the Consumer Complaints Council ("CCC") which examines complaints received against advertisements in terms of the ASCI Code. The CCC of ASCI comprises a majority of members from the civil society who are members of repute and eminence and represent diverse groups such as consumers, youth activists, lawyers, educationists, consultants, journalists, doctors etc. While the ASCI Code lays down guidelines which ought to be followed in the creation, publication, broadcast etc., of advertisements, the CCC receives and examines complaints against advertisements and makes recommendations in tune with the ASCI Code. The 1st Respondent herein seeks to ensure that advertisements conform to the ASCI Code. The Fast Track Complaints Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “FTCP”) is a mechanism adopted by the 1st respondent for handling compl
Abdul Gafur v. State of Uttarakhand
A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd. v. A.P. Agencies
Balaji Coke Industry (P) Ltd. v. Maa Bhagwati Coke Gujarat (P) Ltd.
BSNL v. Motorola India (P) Ltd.
Common Cause (A.REGD. SOCIETY) v. Union of India & others
D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab
Dhruv Green Field Ltd. v. Hukam Singh
Dwarka Prasad Agarwala v. Ramesh Chandra Agarwala
Fatima Joao v. Village Panchayat of Merces
Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar (1974) 2 SCC 393
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
N.Padmamma v. S.Ramakrishna Reddy
Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd. v. Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corpn.
Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd.
Rajasthan SRTC v. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2)
Senior Electric Inspector v. Laxminarayan Chopra
Sulphur Mills Ltd. v. Dayal Fertilizers Pvt. Ltd and others reported in 2021 (3) CTC 178
Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of W.B.
World Sport Group (Mauritius) Ltd. v. MSM Satellite (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.
The court affirmed that the ASCI's order, while recommendatory, gives rise to a cause of action, and part of it arises within Tamil Nadu, thus making the suit maintainable.
The jurisdiction of the Commercial Court can be established through online businesses actively targeting customers within that jurisdiction, regardless of where the business is physically located.
Jurisdiction in internet-based disputes is established through interactivity and accessibility of the Defendant's website, creating potential consumer confusion.
Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits requires courts to accept plaint allegations as true; future apprehension of infringement can establish justiciability.
Jurisdiction in trade mark cases arises where cause of action occurs, including digital accessibility, not solely based on physical business locations.
The court emphasized the importance of urgency in seeking interim relief, the authority of the plaintiff's representative to institute the suit, and the jurisdiction based on the provisions of the Tr....
Defamation suits can be filed in the jurisdiction where the reputational harm is felt, under Section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, without needing leave under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.
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.