Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.56 seconds)
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Limited ... vs Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited on 18 May, 2023 cites

Dabur India Limited vs M/S Colortek Meghalaya Private Limited on 4 December, 2009

59. In our view, even if, we assume that the representation that Pepsodent is more effective in combating germs, 4 hours after brushing, in comparison with Colgate ST, is correct even then, prima facie, the advertisement would be disparaging as it also conveys the message that Colgate is ineffective and lacks the requisite quality to maintain oral hygiene and combat tooth decay and its usage, as depicted by the Colgate child, would result in the user ending up with a tooth related ailment. As explained in Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd.1 a trader 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. In our view, this is precisely what the impugned print advertisement conveys by its advertisement theme and the visual story."
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 32 - R Shakdher - Full Document

Dabur India Ltd. vs Wipro Limited on 27 March, 2006

An advertisement which travelled beyond the grey areas and was false, misleading, unfair or deceptive was held not to be entitled to the benefit of any protection. This Court also approved, in this context, the enunciation, in Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Ltd. 22, that it was "one thing to say that the defendant's product is better than that of the plaintiff and it is another thing to say that the plaintiff's product is inferior to that of the defendant."
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - M B Lokur - Full Document

Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997

In Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. & Anr.18, the appellant had telecast an advertisement regarding a toothpaste claiming that its toothpaste would be more effective in combatting germs. The characters in the said TV Commercial did not specifically mention the respondent's product (Colgate Toothpaste). It merely showed a lip movement by a child in the TV Commercial, which could be identified as pronouncing "Colgate". Further, in the background, a jingle was played, which could be identified as that from the respondent's advertisement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next