Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.50 seconds)
Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 10 December, 2013 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 FAO(OS) No.396/2013 Page 49 of 51 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. & 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

Mrs. Nisha Raj And Anr. vs Mr. Pratap K. Kaula And Ors. on 20 December, 2007

24. Taking a cue from the aforesaid judgments in Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula (supra) and Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), we must apply the tests whether the second impugned order irretrievably prejudices the rights of the appellant or whether it decides a matter of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of the parties which work serious injustice to the party concerned. In our view, the answer to this must be in the negative, particularly, in the light of the fact that the earlier interim application seeking similar reliefs had been heard and decided by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is restricted to challenging the impugned order and on the material placed and the contentions advanced before the learned Single Judge in respect of I.A. 13434/2013.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 12 - S K Kaul - 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, 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.‖
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - M Sinha - Full Document

Shah Babulal Khimji vs Jayaben D. Kania And Anr on 10 August, 1981

24. Taking a cue from the aforesaid judgments in Nisha Raj v. Pratap K. Kaula (supra) and Shah Babulal Khimji (supra), we must apply the tests whether the second impugned order irretrievably prejudices the rights of the appellant or whether it decides a matter of moment or affects vital and valuable rights of the parties which work serious injustice to the party concerned. In our view, the answer to this must be in the negative, particularly, in the light of the fact that the earlier interim application seeking similar reliefs had been heard and decided by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal is restricted to challenging the impugned order and on the material placed and the contentions advanced before the learned Single Judge in respect of I.A. 13434/2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 92 - Cited by 536 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next