Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
DABUR INDIA LTD. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs seeking injunction against misleading advertisements. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. content of defendant's advertisement disparaging fluoride. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. defendant's arguments against plaintiffs' claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's evaluation of plaintiffs' cause of action. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 5. impugned advertisements continuity and previous injunction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. defendant's objections to amendment of plaint. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. court finds no new cause of action necessitating amendment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 8. existing pleadings cover ingredient disparagement. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 9. court allows advertisements to be submitted as evidence. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 10. final conclusion regarding amendment and case progression. (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
JUDGEMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
I.A. No. 10040/2025
1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking inter alia a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from referring to Plaintiffs’ trademark COLGATE and the packaging of COLGATE STRONG TEETH TOOTHPASTE in its advertisement campaigns. The suit also seeks a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from making advertisements that
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
