Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
DABUR INDIA LTD. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 567/2019

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, Mr. Rohil Bansal, Ms. Smriti Nair
For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Jawahar Lal, Ms. Akansha Singh, Mr. Saransh Saini, Ms. Meghna Kumar, Ms. Riya Kumar

The court affirmed that amendments changing the nature of a suit are impermissible, allowing the Plaintiffs to rely on existing pleadings for their disparagement claims against Defendant's misleading advertisements.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 29(8) - Misleading advertisements - Plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against Defendant's advertisements disparaging FLUORIDE in toothpaste. The Court found that the Defendant's ads could mislead public perception of FLUORIDE despite its acknowledged health benefits, warranting protection of the Plaintiffs' trademarks. (Paras 8, 9, 18, 25)

(B) Amendment of pleadings - Court ruled that the proposed amendments by Plaintiffs to challenge the 2025 advertisements would change the nature of the suit, thus were declined. Prior pleadings were deemed sufficient to address the issues. (Paras 26, 28)

(C) Disparagement of products - Court reiterated that generic disparagement of products is impermissible where it unfairly hinders competition, thus protecting the Plaintiffs’ interests. (Para 6.6)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs accused Defendant of launching misleading advertisements promoting non-FLUORIDE toothpaste, claiming risks associated with FLUORIDE. The Defendant's ads positioned FLUORIDE as harmful to children, which Plaintiffs argued undermined their product's credibility.

Findings of Court:
The existing pleadings covered the disparagement claim adequately; the Plaintiffs were entitled to use the new advertisements as evidence without needing to amend their plaint.

Issues: Whether the Plaintiffs' amendment request changed the nature of the original suit and if the advertisements of 2025 constituted disparagement of FLUORIDE-containing products.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court decided there was no legal necessity for amendment as the core issue of ingredient disparagement was already pleaded, thus preserving the intent of expedited trials under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Result: Amendment request rejected; existing pleadings were sufficient for what the Plaintiffs aimed to establish.

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 may contain misleading information regarding the ingredients of the Plaintiffs’ products.

2. I.A. 10040/2025 [‘the captioned application’] dated 16^th April 2025, under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’], has been filed by the Plaintiffs seeking amendment of the plaint dated 9^th October 2019, in order to challenge the Defendant’s advertisements dated 20^th March, 2025 and 14^th April, 2025 [‘impugned advertisements of 2025’].

CASE SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE APPLICATION

3. Learned senior counsel sets up the Plaintiffs’ case as follows:

4. On 20^th March 2025, the Defendant published a half-page [front page] advertisement in the Times of India disparaging FLUORIDE-containing toothpaste and making misleading statements that FLUORIDE can cause lower IQ in kids, make bones brittle and create spots on teeth and calling on the general public to give up toothpaste containing FLUORIDE completely.

4.1. In the same newspaper, i.e., the Times of India dated 20^th March 2025, the full cover page carried the advertisement of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant’s advertisement strategically appeared just after the Plaintiffs’

advertisement.

4.2. The Plaintiffs filed a fresh injunction application, being I.A. No. 8645/2025, which was heard by this Court on 3^rd April 2025, wherein the Court directed the Defendant to place on record materials to justify its claims of ‘lower IQ’, ‘brittle bones’ and ‘spotting on teeth’ as made in the said advertisement. In addition, the Court directed the Defendant to delete the word ‘FAVOURITE’ from the said advertisement.

4.3. On 14^th April 2025, the Defendant once again came up with a modified advertisement for DABUR RED and DABUR MESWAK wherein it disparaged all FLUORIDE-containing toothpaste by stating that ‘excessive fluoride may lead to health problems such as lower Intelligence Quotient [‘IQ’] in kids, brittle bones and spotting on teeth’. The said advertisement is the same as the one which was published by the Defendant on 20^th March 2025, except for the fact that now the word ‘FAVOURITE has been dropped by the Defendant.

4.4. This Court vide order dated 26^th May 2025 issued further directions to the Defendant for carrying out two [2] modifications, i.e., to include the words ‘Swallowing of’ before the words ‘Excessive Fluoride’ to the impugned advertisement with respect to intake of FLUORIDE.

4.5. The Defendant’s impugned advertisements of 2025 disparage FLUORIDE-containing toothpaste as a class. It is stated that the cause of action in the instant suit is a continuous one as the impugned advertisements of 2025 are aimed at not just disparaging the Plaintiffs’ products/toothpaste but also the ingredient thereof, i.e., FLUORIDE.

4.6. The statements made by the Defendant are scientifically

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JCOLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY – AppellantVersusDABUR INDIA LTD. – RespondentCS(COMM) 567/2019

The court affirmed that amendments changing the nature of a suit are impermissible, allowing the Plaintiffs to rely on existing pleadings for their disparagement claims against Defendant's misleading advertisements.

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
DABUR INDIA LTD. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 567/2019