Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The Commission issued a show cause notice under s. 36-B of the Act to the appellant Company informing it that a pro- ceeding had been instituted for making an inquiry whether the Company was indulging in certain unfair trade practices prejudicial to public interest within the meaning of s. 36- A. A copy of the notice has been attached to the petition of appeal as Annexure 'C', wherein it was alleged that,

(i) although the Company was manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with M/s Mitsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd, and not with National Panasonic of Japan, it was issuing advertisements announcing that 'Novi- no' batteries are manufactured in collabora- tion with National Panasonic of Japan using National Panasonic techniques, and

(ii) the representation that 'Novino' batter- ies are manufactured by joint venture or collaboration with National Panasonic was false and misleading and thereby causing loss or injury to the consumers.

In its reply the Company (appellant before us) denied to have made any wrong representation in the advertisements. It was asserted that the Company has actually entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Mitsushita Electric Indus- trial Ltd. of Japan for the manufacture of dry cell batter- ies, and was adopting the process for manufacturing 'Novino' batteries as is employed by Mitsushita Ltd. The agreement has been duly approved by the Ministry of Industry, Govern- ment of India. It is further stated that the Mitsushita Ltd. of Japan is better known by its products described by the names "National" and "Panasonic" and there is no question of misleading anybody by the description of the Japanese Compa- ny by its products. Rejecting the appellant's explanation, the Commission passed the impugned order.

3. As is clear from the show cause notice, it has been assumed that the appellant Company is manufacturing 'Novino' batteries in collaboration with Mitsushita Ltd., but the question is whether, in the circumstances, it can claim that it is making "batteries in collaboration with National Panasonic of Japan", and further whether the act, complained of, will be covered by the provisions of s. 36-B and 36~D of the Act authorising the respondent Commission to make an enquiry and issue appropriate directions. The expression "unfair trade practice" has been defined in s. 36-A as a trade practice which adopts any or more of the practices enumerated in the section. It has been contended before us by the learned counsel for the respondent, and the judgment under appeal also holds, that the case is covered by clauses

"It is true that the Director (Research) has not carried out any practical research to discover how far the National & Panasonic Batteries of Japan and the Novino Batteries manufactured by the respondent company vary in or conform to quality, benefits and durability and to what extent the use of the names Pana- sonic and National to signify collaboration has been confusing for the customer m his choice of Novino Battery. Yet I do feel that bearing in mind the Indian condi- tions the use of National and Panasonic to signify collaboration will have a misleading effect on the minds of the common class of customers, particularly when Novino Battery is projected in the setting of advertisement Ex. A-1/a side by side the National. Panasonic and Technics Batteries."