Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Trade rivalries which lead to advertisements in which the product of an advertiser is extolled and the rival product deprecated have led to this suit by the plaintiff Dabur India Ltd. who makes Dabur Lal Dant Manjan Powder, against the defendant Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. who manufacture Colgate tooth powder. This suit and this application for interim injunction is occasioned by an advertisement aired on the visual media by the defendant. The sum and substance of the TV advertisement complained of is that a Cinestar Sunil Shetty is seen stopping the purchasers of Lal Dant Manjan powders. He further inform them of the ill effects of such Lal Dant Manjan by rubbing it on the purchaser's spectacles which leave marks which are termed by Sunil Shetty as being akin to sandpapering. He also endorses the defendant Colgate's tooth powder as being 16 times less abrasive and non damaging to the spectacles. He is heard telling the purchaser that it is easy to change spectacles but not the teeth.

"29. Infringement of registered trade marks--
....
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising--
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) ....
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.

Such violation of Section 28(a) & (c) tantamounts to infringement of a registered trade mark.

(f) Even Colgate Palmolive, the defendant had secured an interim injunction in respect of an advertisement which was detrimental to the reputation of their product in the MRTP Commission and such injunction was upheld by the Supreme Court by a judgment reported as

(i) Hindustan Lever v. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd., .
(ii) Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramachandran and Anr., 1999 PTC (19) 741.
(iii) Reckitt & colman of India v. Kiwi TTK Ltd., 1996 PTC (16) 393.

17. By calling the Cola drink of the appellants "Yeh Bachhon Wali Hai, Bachon Ko Yeh Pasand Aayegi". "Wrong Choice Baby", the respondents depicted the commercial in a derogatory and mocking manner. It can't be called puffing up. Repeatedly telecasting this commercial will leave an impression on the mind of the viewers that product of the appellant i.e. "PEPSI" is simply a sweet thing nor meant for grown up or growing children. If they choose PEPSI, it would be a wrong choice. The message is that kids who want to grow should not drink "PEPSI". They should grow up with "Thums UP". The manner in which this message is conveyed does show disparagement of the appellant's product."