Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Reckitt Benckiser India Private ... vs Hindustan Unilever Limited on 9 November, 2021 cites

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

& Anr. (supra) 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

Pepsi Co., Inc. And Ors. vs Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. And Anr. on 1 September, 2003

15. There is one other decision that we think would give some guidance and that is Pepsi Co. Inc. & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. & Another, 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del.) (DB). In this decision, a Division Bench of this Court held that while boasting about one's product is permissible, disparaging a rival IA No.8999/2021 in CS(COMM) 340/2021 Page 22 of 33 product is not.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 41 - O P Dwivedi - Full Document

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

(iv) While glorifying its product, an advertiser may not denigrate or disparage a rival product. Similarly, in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition Reissue, Volume 28) it is stated in paragraph 278 that ―[It] is actionable when the words go beyond a mere puff and constitute untrue statements of fact about a rival's product.‖ This view was followed, amongst others, in Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Limited, Bangalore, 2006 (32) PTC 677 (Del). ―[It] is 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

Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd vs M.P.Ramchandran & Anr on 22 June, 2010

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 IA No.8999/2021 in CS(COMM) 340/2021 Page 25 of 33 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.‖
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - M Sinha - Full Document

Dabur India Ltd. vs Emami Limited on 3 July, 2019

20. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Dabur India Limited v. Emami Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9022. That was a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from broadcasting, printing and publishing the ‗ZANDU CHYAVANPRASHAD' advertisement which was said to be disparaging and injurious to the goodwill and reputation of Chyawanprash including the plaintiff's DABAR CHYAWANPRASH. The court held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 19 - S Narula - Full Document

Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 21 August, 2013

17. Reference may be had to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 3186. In the said judgment, the matter pertains to whether the impugned advertisements misuse the plaintiff's registered trade mark ‗Colgate' and are disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's toothpaste Colgate Dental Cream Strong Teeth and as to whether the impugned advertisements tarnish, slander and defame the worth and reputation of the plaintiff's brand and products. The Co-ordinate Bench held as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1