Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

14. It has also been alleged by the defendant that the plaintiff's suit is misconceived as no cause of action against the defendant has accrued in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant inasmuch as the advertisement, in question, refers to ordinary antiseptic soaps and the plaintiff's soap is neither an antiseptic soap, nor an ordinary (unbranded) soap. A reference was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Naga Limited & Others: 2003 (26) PTC 535 (Del.), wherein it was allegedly held that the plaintiff's soap is not an antiseptic soap. The defendant has also taken the objection that the plaintiff's suit deserves to be dismissed as not maintainable as the plaintiff does not have a monopoly over the colour or over the shape of the soap and cannot claim exclusivity over the colour, shape or packaging of the soap. It has also been alleged that the defendant further believes that the shape, contours and curvatures of the plaintiff's orange coloured soap DETTOL is not registered under the Design's Act to give the plaintiff an exclusive right to use the same. The defendant has also alleged that the plaintiff has approached this Court with unclean hands and is guilty of suppression of material facts.

40. Reference was also made to a decision of this Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Naga Limited & Others: 104 (2003) DLT 490, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court observed as under:-

"On a reading of the plaint I find the statement significant that the "consumers perceive Dettol soap as strong and effective in maintaining personal hygiene and regard it as an efficient antiseptic soap that kills harmful germs and bacteria and ensures good health and hygiene.... It is submitted that the Dettol Soap has earned the consumers' confidence because it has been tried and tested by the consumers inducing a belief in them that Dettol soap has all the properties that an antiseptic soap for personal hygiene must have.... The public perception is that Dettol soap shares the same medicinal and curative qualities as the dettol liquid. It matters little whether this misunderstanding has been contrived by the manufacturer or has developed in the consumers mind independently. However, in the present case it is the Plaintiff's own averment that this belief has been induced by it and nevertheless it is sanguine enough to expect discretion to be exercised in its favour. If any party, such as the Defendant, helps in correcting the error, it commits no illegality. The tortious injunction, which is the backbone of the present action, is predicated on falsehood, and in the present circumstances, the falsehood can be laid at the door of the Plaintiff and not of the Defendant. Once this conclusion is arrived at, it is not possible to grant any injunctory relief." [paragraph 7, pg 493]"

43. As against these submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the decision in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd (supra) relates to an entirely different advertising campaign of the plaintiff and that too, against a different defendant and, therefore, has been decided on a different set of facts which has no relevance to the present proceedings. It was also submitted that the plaintiff has been careful in ensuring that the distinction between the Dettol Liquid and Dettol Toilet Soap is not lost sight of. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the description of the DETTOL Original Soap as a toilet soap can be discerned from paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 19 (i) and 19 (iii) of the plaint. It was contended that while the plaint describes how the DETTOL brand had been extended from an antiseptic liquid to toilet soaps, nowhere is the claim made that the Dettol toilet soap had any antiseptic qualities.

44. I am inclined to agree with the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiff. Nowhere in the plaint has a claim been made that the plaintiff's Dettol Original Soap, which is the toilet soap in question, is an antiseptic soap. As noted in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. (supra), there is a general pubic perception that DETTOL toilet soap shares the same medicinal and curative qualities as the DETTOL Liquid. But, for the purpose of the present suit, what is important is: whether the plaintiff has made any averments in the plaint indicating or suggesting that the DETTOL Original soap is an antiseptic soap? The plaintiff has made statements explaining the development of its brand name through time. Initially, the plaintiff‟s product was the DETTOL Liquid which was used and is used as an antiseptic. Under the mark/brand name DETTOL, the plaintiff diversified its product range to include liquid hand washes and toilet soaps, which were not antiseptic products. The plaintiff has, no doubt, highlighted the goodwill and extensive reach of its brand DETTOL created through its primary product Dettol Liquid. However, at the same time, the plaintiff has clearly stated, as would be apparent from paragraph 7 of the plaint that in terms of product development, DETTOL has continuously evolved to meet modern day demands, and now incorporates a range of innovative antiseptic, disinfectant and cleaning products ranging from the antiseptic Liquid through to DETTOL Liquid Hand wash and the famous DETTOL toilet soap which has been manufactured and sold by the plaintiff continuously since the year 1981. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it is stated that "the present action concerns the intentional and deliberate disparagement by the defendant of the plaintiff's product "DETTOL", a toilet soap which is identified by the members of the trade and public by the colour of the soap bar and its new modern, distinctive and unique shape.......". The plaintiff has placed the packaging of the DETTOL toilet soap on record which also does not indicate that the soap is an antiseptic soap.