Madras High Court
Compendiously And Concisely vs M.P.Ramchandran And Another Reported ... on 7 April, 2010
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07/04/2010 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA O.A.Nos.776 and 777 of 2009 in C.S.No.659 of 2009 ORDER
Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two applications would run thus:
(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:
- For an injunction restraining the defendants, their distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them from telecasting the offending comparative advertisement in Telugu or Hindi languages, the story boards of which are filed as Plaint Document Nos.5 and 6 or from disparaging the plaintiff's Pond's Dreamflower Talc in any other manner whatsoever;
- For a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner resorting to commercial disparagement of the plaintiff's Pond's Dreamflower Talc under the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whatsoever;
- To direct the defendants to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as special damages for the loss inflicted upon the plaintiff by the disparaging advertisement made by the defendants; and
- For costs.
(b) The same plaintiff filed these two applications seeking the following reliefs:
- O.A.No.776 of 2009 : To grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them from telecasting the offending comparative advertisement in Telugu or Hindi languages, the story boards of which are filed as Plaint Document Nos.5 and 6, or from disparaging the applicant's Pond's Dreamflower Talc in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
- O.A.No.777 of 2009: To grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondents, their distributors, marketers, franchisees, dealers, agents, stockists, representatives, advertisers, successors-in-business, assigns or any one claiming through or under them from in any manner resorting to commercial disparagement of the applicant's Pond's Dreamflower Talc under the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.
(c) Common counters have been filed by the defendants disputing and gainsaying the averments/allegations in the applications.
2. The points for consideration are as to:
1. Whether ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from telecasting the offending comparative advertisement in Telugu or Hindi languages, the story boards of which are filed as Plaint Document Nos.5 and 6, or from disparaging the applicant's Pond's Dreamflower Talc in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit could be granted?
2. Whether ad interim injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner resorting to commercial disparagement of the applicant's Pond's Dreamflower Talc under the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit could be granted?
3. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit.
4. The Tour d'horizon of the learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff would run thus:
(a) The plaintiff is the leading marketer in selling the product called 'POND'S DREAMFLOWER TALC' ever since 1983 and it is having almost 55.6% share in the general market in selling this product. While so, the first defendant who started manufacturing and selling its product by name 'EMAMI NAVRATNA COOL TALC' indulged in disparaging the plaintiff's product in Hindi and Telugu advertisements.
(b) The typed set of papers of the plaintiff would exemplify and demonstrate as to how the defendants are disparaging the product of the plaintiff by virtually showing the container of the plaintiff's product in a contemptuous manner in the advertisements and it was also verbally and visually projected as though the product of the plaintiff is useless. This is a clear case of disparagement of the plaintiff's product and unless injunction is granted, certainly it would affect the reputation of the plaintiff's product and consequently it would affect the sales.
5. By way of torpedoing and pulverising the argument as advanced on the side of the plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would set forth and put forth his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
(a) By no stretch of imagination it could be stated that the defendants targeted the plaintiff's product.
(b) Simply because pink and white colours have been chosen in the advertisement to depict the product, the plaintiff cannot in a hypersensitive way assume as though it refers to the plaintiff's product.
(c) There are in the market umpteen number of containers having pink and white colours get up and in such a case, the plaintiff is not justified in coming to this Court with the grievance that the defendants intended to disparage the product of the plaintiff. Unless the plaintiff could establish that the plaintiff's product is disparaged, no injunction could be granted. Fair criticism also is contemplated and the first defendant for the purpose of advertising its own products can talk well of itself to the exclusion of other products. Unless it is shown that in the advertisement the product of the plaintiff is projected as bad, no injunction could be granted.
Accordingly, he prays for the dismissal of both the applications.
POINT NOS.1 & 2:
Both the points are taken together for discussion as they are inter- linked and inter-twined with each other.
6. A mere poring over and perusal of the plaintiff's typed set of papers and more specifically, the pages 18 to 26 of it would demonstrate and display, that they contain the still photos of the first defendant's advertisements, both in Hindi as well as in Telugu. I would like to extract the relevant portions found in the Hindi advertisement and it would run thus:
"MVO1: Acchi khusbu aa rahi hai..
Nice smell MVO2: Mera powder phoolon waala hai ...aur tera?
My powder has flowers......and yours?
MVO1:Arre bhai hum toh thande hain....Hot toh aap hain Oh brother, I am cool (Sarcastically) ....You are the one who is hot.
MVO2:Arre bhai....arrey bhaiyya! Yeh kya ho gaya? Pankha chalu karo bohot garmil lag rahi hai...
Oh brother! What happened? Turn on the fan .....It's terribly hot in here.
MVO2:Mere phool to jhaad gaye...tu kya baraf ka banaa hai?
My flowers have fallen off.....Are you made of ice?
MVO1: Unhu, Mera powder thanda hai...
No. My powder is cool......
MVO1:Sadharan talcum powder se mile sirf khushbu.......lekin Navratna Cool Talc se mile khushboo hi nahin.........thandak bhi.
Ordinary talcum powder gives you only fragrance....but with Navratna Cool Talc you not only get fragrance but also the cooling effect.
MVO1: Yaani zabardast taazgi ka ehsaas. Toh sirf khushboo wale powder se samjhota kyun?
That means super refreshing feeling. So why compromise for an ordinary powder?
MVO2: Ye cool, aur mein, bloody phool.
He's cool & I'm a bloody fool (flower in Hindi) MVO1:Navratna cool talc MVO2:Duniya ka sabse chota a/c MVO1:Navratna Cool Talc MVO2: World's smallest a/c.
MVO1&2:Thanda thanda cool cool Super:Thanda thanda cool cool MVO1&2:Thanda means Cold in Hindi"
7. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant portions extracted supra, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would submit that in the Hindi advertisement, the famous Hindi actor, namely Sharukh Khan is shown in double action, one role of him wearing black full suit and another role of him wearing pink and white garment. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, Sharukh Khan in pink and white garment represents the plaintiff's product; he holds the 'POND'S DREAMFLOWER TALC' container and he throws away the said container contemptuously as though he is a fool, and whereas, Sharukh Khan in black suit is holding the first defendant's product, namely 'EMAMI NAVRATNA COOL TALC' proudly.
8. Disparagement, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff is writ large in the advertisement and no explanation is required in view of the comparison made in the advertisement to the effect that the first defendant's product is the best product; it is far better than the plaintiff's product; the plaintiff's product is shown to have been thrown by the said actor as useless and he calls himself as though he is a 'Fool' for having used the said product. There is also, according to him, a pun upon the word 'Fool' and 'Phool', as in English, the word 'Fool' means an idiot, whereas, in Hindi the word 'Phool' would refer to flower; the contextual interpretation of that version would clearly exemplify and demonstrate that in the advertisement the users of the plaintiff's product are depicted and projected as fools and no more further elaboration in this regard is required. Accordingly he prays that the said advertisement has to be injuncted.
9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would submit that the plaintiff cannot be hypersensitive in assuming and presuming that only the plaintiff's container is found projected in poor light in the advertisement; the plaintiff cannot have monopoly over the colours pink and white; there are umpteen number of Talcum products in the market being sold in pink and white containers; and by way of buttressing and fortifying his argument, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants also displayed before me in the Court more than twelve containers having pink and white get up. The impugned term as per him, refers to only 'bloody flower' and not 'bloody fool'.
10. Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would refer to the recently telecasted Tamil advertisement of the first defendant so as to find support to his interpretation of the Hindi version of the impugned term, for which the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants objected on the ground that it is not the subject matter of this suit. Be that as it may, now this Court is concerned with the very interpretation of the impugned Hindi versions as found in the Hindi telecast. I would like to observe that undoubtedly, the plaintiff cannot have monopoly over the colours pink and white. Pink and white is something that can be used by any one. Simply because the Hindi actor Sharukh Khan is wearing garments in pink and white colours, I do not think that the plaintiff should look askance at it and raise its accusative finger as against the first defendant and contend that the first defendant is disparaging, by projecting Sharukh Khan in such dress. This Court is not very much concerned with the dress worn by Sharuk Khan in the Hindi advertisement.
11. However, it is pellucidly and palpably, plainly and clearly, obviously and axiomatically clear that the plaintiff's container, so to say 'POND'S DREAMFLOWER TALC' in pink and white is found depicted in the Hindi advertisement. In page No.20 of the plaintiff's typed set, it is found that Sharukh Khan in pink and white dress is holding pink and white container. A mere look at it would make any observer or viewer of the advertisement to link that container with 'POND'S DREAMFLOWER TALC'. A question might arise as to how this Court could come to such a conclusion. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is a leading marketer of the said product and nothing has been shown that any other product which is being sold in pink and white container has achieved that much success in selling its product. In such a case, the viewers will automatically link pink and white container with the plaintiff's product and the Court cannot turn its face away from the reality.
12. By way of adding fuel to the fire, the first defendant in Telugu advertisement, clearly at one point of time showed distinctively the pink and white container. I closely observed and found that the back side of the container is projected and in the first defendant's container there is a slight curvature in the lid portion bending down towards right side and exactly that could be seen. In fact, I took initiative of comparing a few other containers produced on the first defendant's side, but those lids are all horizontal in shape and in some products, the curvature is more. Much of a muchness could be seen between the plaintiff's container and the container in pink and white as depicted in Telugu advertisement. Therefore, the shape, size, the pink and white colour combination and the total get up of the container as projected in both the advertisements would easily enable any one to arrive at a conclusion that in the advertisements only the plaintiff's product is targeted.
13. The next question which arises is as to what interpretation could be attributed to the version 'Bloody Fool'. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants, citing the meaning of the said word in Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which is extracted hereunder:
"Bloody:
1. Stained or covered with blood: a bloody handkerchief.
2. bleeding : a bloody nose
3. characterized by bloodshed: bloody battle; a bloody rule.
4. inclined to bloodshed; blood thirsty: a bloody dictator
5. of, pertaining to, or resembling blood; containing or composed of blood: bloody tissue.
6. Slang. (used as an intensifier): a bloody shame; a bloody nuisance
7. to stain or smear with bloodshed
8. to cause to bleed, as by a blow or accident: to bloody someone's nose
9. Slang. (used as an intensifier):bloody awful; bloody wonderful."
would develop his argument that the word 'Bloody' is having no pejorative meaning or derogatory sense and it is an intensifier word and nothing more. I may even like to agree with the interpretation as suggested by the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants relating to the words 'bloody', but the contextual interpretation of the entire impugned term is absolutely necessary. The term used is 'Bloody Fool' and that too he says 'I am Bloody Fool' and there is no pause between the two terms 'I am' and 'Bloody fool'.
14. At one point of time, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would try to unsuccessfully convince this Court by pointing out, that the said Sharukh Khan in pink and white dress on understanding and realising laments himself by saying 'I am' and thereafter, he says the product pink and white which he was holding was a 'bloody flower' and thereby indicates that the first defendant's product which gives cool effect is the best one. In my considered opinion, words cannot be strained so as to suit once convenience and that too for the first defendant to wriggle out of the liability.
15. At this juncture, I call up and recollect the following maxims:
1. Verba generalia restringuntur ad habilitatem rei vel personae: General words may be aptly restrained according to the matter or person to which they relate.
2. Verba ita sunt intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat: Words are to be so interpreted as to be effective rather than ineffective.
3. Verba generalia generaliter sunt intelligenda General words are to be generally understood.
16. Whatever words used should be taken in the general sense and in concinnity and in consonance with the very purpose for which a particular matter is projected. Here the advertisement compares the first defendant's product with one other product. In my opinion, that said one other product refers only to the plaintiff's product as highlighted in my discussion supra. It is shown that Sharukh Khan in pink and white dress throws away, by saying that 'I am a Bloody Fool'. It cannot be stated that he called himself 'I am a Bloody Flower' and if it is assumed as though he stated that the said product was 'Bloody Flower', then the term 'I am' without any pause occurring with the term 'Bloody Flower' would be meaningless. So, in a meaningful manner, the entire versions 'I am Bloody Fool' should be interpreted . No man having head over shoulder would ever say 'I am a bloody flower'. As such, for the purpose of wriggling out of their liability, the defendants have chosen to put such an interpretation as though the word 'Bloody Fool' refers to 'Bloody Flower' so to say to the pink and white product. In fact, the advertisement connotes and denotes, conveys and projects, that the user of the said product is a 'Bloody Fool' and the viewers also would take that advertisement in that sense only.
17. Coming to Telugu advertisement, the versions are as under:
"Jingle: Nadustundi...challatanam naatho paatu nadustundi.....
The cool goes where I go....
Saadharamaina talcum toh dorukutundi kevalam suvasana, kaani navratna cool talc toh dorukutundi suvasanam toh paatu, challatanam kooda, ante chakkati taaza yukta anubhooti......
Ordinary talcum powder gives you only fragrance... but with Navratna Cool Talc you not only get fragrance but also the cooling effect. That means super refreshing feeling.
MVO: Aite kevalam suvasana powder to saripetukodam yenduku?
So why settle for an ordinary powder?
MVO: Navratna cool talc, anitkanna chinna a/c. Challa challa cool cool Navratna Cool Talc. World's smallest a/c.
Challa means cool in Telugu"
18. The sum and substance of the Telugu advertisement is that the plaintiff's product at the most could give only fragrance and why people should settle for an ordinary powder, so to say the pink and white container indicating the plaintiff's product. In my opinion that is also an objectionable one.
19. At this juncture, I would like to consider the various decisions cited on either side. On the plaintiff's side, the learned Senior Counsel cited the following decisions:
The Calcutta High Court in the Reckitt and Colman of India Limited vs. M.P.Ramchandran and another reported in 1999(19) PTC 741 in the judgment laid down the following principles:
"I) A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue.
II) He can also say that his goods are better than his competitors', even though such statement is untrue.
III) For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are better than his competitors' he can even compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others.
IV) He however, cannot, while saying that his goods are better than his competitors', say that his competitors' goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible.
V) If there is no defamation to the goods or to the manufacturer of such goods no action lies, but if there is such defamation an action lies and if an action lies for recovery of damages for defamation, then the Court is also competent to grant an order of injunction restraining repetition of such defamation."
The said precedent has been followed in subsequent decisions .
20. In fact, the learned senior Advocates for the plaintiff and defendants, in unison, relied upon the following four judgments:
1. 2004(29)PTC 1 (Del) Dabur India Limited vs. Emami Limited.
2. 2004(29)PTC 401 (Del) Dabur India Limited vs. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd.
3. 1999(19) PTC 741 (Reckitt and Colman of India Limited vs. M.P.Ramachandran and another).
4. 2009(2)Cal H.N.479 (Heinz India Private Limited vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited and others) However, they tried to interpret differently. The plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1989) 3 SCC 251 (M/s.Lakhanpal National Limited vs. MRTP Commission and another) for the purpose of highlighting that there should not be any misleading statement in tricky language. There could be no quarrel over such a proposition.
21. The judgment rendered in Heinz India Private Limited vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited and others would refer to the earlier decisions cited on the plaintiff's side herein and accordingly reiterated the propositions as found set out there under.
22. The decision of this court reported in 2008 4 CTC 675 (Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd.) would also refer to the decisions cited by the plaintiffs supra and relied upon the points highlighted therein.
23. On the defendants' side totally 12 decisions were cited and out of which several decisions were already cited on the plaintiff's side, which would highlight in totality the same points as found set out in the Reckitt and Colman's case.
24. In White vs. Melin reported in 1895 AC 154 the point highlighted by the House of Lords, was that mere talking well off one's product would not tantamount to disparaging of the products of others, even if others goods are compared. Absolutely there could be no doubt about such a proposition as in my opinion that has become a well settled proposition as of now.
25. In Gurnam Singh vs. Surjit Singh reported in (1975) 4 SCC 404, the law found enunciated, in my opinion, is apparently having no nexus with the matter involved in this case.
26. The verdicts in Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. reported in (1999) (7) SCC 1 and in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd. 2006 (32) PTC 307 (del) also would reiterate the point as found highlighted in White vs. Melin case only.
27. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. & Anr. vs. University of Mumbai reported in 2002(053)-CLA-0264-MRTPC, is also on the same point.
28. M.Balasundaram vs. Jyothi Laboratories and Another reported in (1995(082)Compcas-830-MRTC, is on the point that unless it is highlighted that the advertisement disparages the goods of the rival, no injunction could be granted.
29. The warp and woof of those decisions would demonstrate and display, express and portray, that a trader can even to some extent indulge in puffery, but he should not go to the extent of slandering or defaming the products of the rivals, either specifically or generally.
30. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would implore and entreat, by pointing out that unless the plaintiff could show pointedly that its products are targeted in the advertisements, the question of granting injunction would not arise. My finding supra would exemplify and indicate that so far this case is concerned, the advertisements are targeted towards the plaintiff's product only and as such the plaintiff is entitled to injunction.
31. Alternis visi bus, even for argument sake it is taken that the advertisement is not specifically referred to the plaintiff's product, but only to the products in pink and white colour containers, still it would amount to disparagement of such products in general. Inasmuch as among the manufacturers or sellers of the products using the pink and white containers, the plaintiff also forms part and the plaintiff being the leading marketer of such product in white and pink container, certainly it is entitled to approach this Court for injunction.
32. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff inviting the attention of this Court to the decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 112(2004)DLT 73 (Dabur India Limited vs. Emami Limited) would develop his argument that in para 7 of it, the learned Judge indicated that even if the advertisement is focussed in such a disparaging manner to the entire class of a product, still it would amount to disparaging of such products. Here even if it is taken that the advertisements are in disparagement of the products using pink and white containers in general, nonetheless, the plaintiff would have a cause of action as it happened to be the leading marketer of one such product. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would submit that the aforesaid view is only an obiter and not ratio decidendi. I would like to point out that while deciding the said case, the learned Judge did not simply make any passing reference, but he would put forth the view alternis visi bus and in such a case, it could be taken that it is the ratio decidendi of the said decision.
33. I would like to extract from Salmond's Jurisprudence the author's view on ratio decidendi and certain excerpts from it would run thus:
"Having considered the extent to which courts are bound by previous decisions, we must now examine what constitutes the decision in a case and what it is that is actually binding on later courts.
First, however, we must distinguish what a case decides generally and as against all the world from what it decides between the parties themselves. What it decides generally is the ratio decidendi or rule of law for which it is authority; what it decides between the parties includes far more than just this. Since it would be obviously impracticable if there were no end to litigation and if either party to a legal dispute were at liberty to reopen the dispute at any time, the law provides that once a case has been heard and all appeals have been taken (or the time for appeal has gone by) all parties to the dispute and their successors are bound by the court's findings on the issues raised between them and on questions of fact and law necessary to the decision of such issues."
34. No doubt, the decision of a single Judge of the other Courts would have only persuasive effect, but not binding effect on this Court. Nevertheless, I would like to agree with the view expressed in the said judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 112(2004)DLT 73 (Dabur India Limited vs. Emami Limited) on the aforesaid aspect only.
35. Similar view is found expressed in one other judgment of the same Delhi High Court reported in 2006(32) PTC 677 (Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Limited, Bangalore). A mere poring over and perusal of the said decision would fortify my view only.
36. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendants would stress upon the fact that unless an advertisement tantamounts to defamation or slander, the question of granting injunction would not arise. Whereupon, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would advance his argument highlighting and spotlighting that in the impugned advertisements, the defendants did not stop with by merely projecting the first defendant's product as the best one, but went to the extent of pooh-poohing, belittling, despising and discarding the plaintiff's product by projecting as though the user of the product is a fool and that if it is used it will not have any good effect etc.
37. I would like to agree with the view expressed by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff. In fact, in the Hindi advertisement the disparagement is comparatively more than what is in the Telugu advertisement. I am of the considered view that the defendants adhering to the decisions cited supra, could have refrained from disparaging the plaintiff's product.
38. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would further develop his argument by pointing out that once this Court comes to the conclusion that certain objectionable materials are there in the advertisement, then the entire advertisement should be banned in view of the judgments of the Delhi High Court reported in Dabur India Limited vs. Emami Limited (cited supra) as well as in Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Limited, Bangalore (cited supra).
39. I would like to disagree only with the said view in those precedents for the reasons set out infra.
The ratiocination adhered to by the learned Judges in those matters was to the effect that once the viewers got inkling or clue or impression that a particular advertisement is aimed to target a particular product, then even if the objectionable portions are removed, yet whenever they see the advertisements niggard and bereft of those objectionable matters, they will still take it as though the advertisement is targeted only as against the plaintiff's product. However, I cannot countenance and adopt such a view. I would like to differ with such a view to that much extent alone in those precedents. Viewers cannot be taken for granted that they are all incapable of seeing the wood for trees or distinguishing the one from the other. Once objectionable portions are removed from the advertisements, then the advertisements could be permitted to be telecasted in whatever manner the defendants might be willing to project either with or without further modifications and the Court cannot mandate that the defendants should once and for all because of certain objectionable matters in the advertisement, the entire advertisement should be banned.
40. The learned senior counsel for the plaintiff would submit that as prayed in O.A.No.777 of 2010, there might be an injunction granted as against the defendants from resorting to commercial disparagement of the plaintiff's 'Pond's Dreamflower Talc' under the guise of comparative advertisement in any other manner, for which the learned senior counsel for the defendants would submit that there cannot be any blanket injunction granted as against the defendants so as to throttle their right to advertise their product within the parameters of law. I would like to agree with the view of the learned counsel for the defendants, but it goes without saying that in view of the ratiocination adhered to by me supra, there could be a direction as against the defendants in O.A.No.777 of 2010 only to the effect that whenever the defendants' advertise, they should see that it is well within the parameters of law.
41. O.A.No.776 of 2009 is ordered as under:
(1) In the Hindi advertisement as found depicted at page Nos.20 and 21 of the plaintiff's typed set of papers, the portion as contained in the seventh photo(counting from the beginning) and the related scenes in the advertisement showing Sharukh Khan in pink and white throwing away the pink and white product and the words "I am a bloody fool" should be deleted.
(2) In the Telugu advertisement as found depicted at Page No.25 of the same set, the Photograph No.6 (counting from the beginning) depicts the plaintiff's product and the said portion and the related scenes connected with that depiction should be deleted. Relating to the seventh photo at the same page No.25, the first half portion would show as though the man there is holding the plaintiff's product and that alone has to be deleted and regarding the other portion of it, there is no injunction.
Accordingly, both the applications are ordered.
42. The learned senior counsel for the defendants would make an extempore submission on hearing the order pronounced in the open court that this order might be suspended for a week's time. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently opposed it by pointing out various features involved in this case.
43. Considering the pro et contra, I am of the considered view that for implementing this order, time could be granted till 12.04.2010 for the defendants and if there is non-compliance with the above, this order shall be enforceable after 12.04.2010.
gms