Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 42 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd vs M.P.Ramchandran & Anr on 22 June, 2010

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private ... vs Hindustan Unilever Limited on 26 September, 2022

The propositions as stated in Reckitt and Colman India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.18 are good law when considered in the context of puffery as contrasted with statements that hold out representations of facts. Such representations of facts are required to be true and not misleading. Puffery and exaggerated opinions are merely intended to attract the attention of targeted customers; such statements are neither intended as representations or warranties, nor accepted as representation of facts. Puffery and hyperbole are not tested on the anvil of accuracy or truth. There is an element of creativeness, which finds expression in puffery and hyperbole.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Reckitt Benckiser India Private ... vs Hindustan Unilever Limited on 30 July, 2021

These propositions have been accepted by learned Single Judges of this Court in several cases, but in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Press, that false, misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising is not protected commercial speech, we are of the opinion that propositions (a) and (b) above and the first part of proposition (c) are not good law. While hyped-up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible, therefore, for anybody to make an off-the-cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are IA No.8999/2021 in CS(COMM) 340/2021 Page 11 of 13 the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival.""
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - J Nath - Full Document

Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing ... vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. And 3 Ors on 13 December, 2018

29] Again, in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Reckitt 12 ILR (2003) I DELHI 325 37/46 ::: Uploaded on - 26/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/12/2018 06:37:41 ::: (APP) 340-17.doc Benckiser (I) Ltd. 13, the Court has referred to the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr reported as 1999 PTC (19) 741, which has laid down the principles on which action on the basis of disparagement could be based. As discussed hereinabove, if the advertisement had restricted itself to puffing up the product of the Appellant or showing its product to be the best one or rested on comparing its product, there would have been no issue. However, the advertisement shows that, it had not stopped at that and the Appellant has shown the product of the Plaintiff in poor light, and has attempted to show that frozen desserts were harmful to health. As such, the said judgment would also not be applicable to the facts of the present case.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 10 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Zydus Wellness Products Ltd vs Dabur India Limited on 22 December, 2022

These propositions have been accepted by learned Single Judges of this Court in several cases, but in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Press that false, misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising is not protected commercial speech, we are of the opinion that propositions (a) and (b) above and the first part of proposition (c) are not good law. While hyped-up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible, therefore, for anybody to make an off-the-cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival."
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Godrej Consumer Products Limited vs Initiative Media Advertising And ... on 19 July, 2012

14. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran (supra) had an occasion to consider the advertisement wherein the product of the plaintiff "Robin Blue" was sought to be disparaged by the defendant who was manufacturing the product whitener under the brand name "Ujala". In the said advertisement, the product whitener in the bottle of dispenser with the word "blue" printed on it was disparaged by showing disadvantages of the said product. It was the case of the defendant therein that the plaintiff's product was Robin Liquid Blue whereas the bottle of which dispenser was shown was an ordinary bottle of blue as such it was not disparaging the product of the defendant. The learned judgment observed thus:
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - B R Gavai - Full Document

Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 10 December, 2013

These propositions have been accepted by learned Single Judges of this Court in several cases, but in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Tata Press, that false, FAO(OS) No.396/2013 Page 22 of 51 misleading, unfair or deceptive advertising is not protected commercial speech, we are of the opinion that propositions (a) and (b) above and the first part of proposition (c) are not good law. While hyped-up advertising may be permissible, it cannot transgress the grey areas of permissible assertion, and if does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. It is not possible, therefore, for anybody to make an off-the-cuff or unsubstantiated claim that his goods are the best in the world or falsely state that his goods are better than that of a rival.‖
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 20 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Reckitt Benkciser (India) Ltd. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 14 May, 2013

246 and 319 of 2013; Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (PTY) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever South Africa (PTY) Ltd.; Reckitt Colman of India Ltd v. M.P. Ramchandran & Anr, 1999 PTC (19) 741; Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, AIR 2008 GUJ 94; Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del); Dabur India Ltd v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd and Godrej Sara-Lee, 2010 (44) PTC 254 (Del); and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3105.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M L Mehta - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next