cites: 257399

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)

Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. vs Sh. Adhikari Brothers And Ors. on 23 May, 2005 cites

Dabur India Limited vs Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. on 9 September, 2004

In Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., , the defendants advertisement claimed that Lal Dant Manjan was harmful for the teeth. The plaintiff who manufactured Lal Dant Manjan successfully complained to the Court who found the statement and the comparison disparaging.

Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 28 - M Mudgal - Full Document

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

In Pepsi Co. Inc and Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Anr. (2003) 27 PTC 305, the defendants' commercial, said that Pepsi was for children because children like sweet things. The Court found that statement disparaging, and therefore, restrained the telecast of the advertisement.

Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 41 - O P Dwivedi - Full Document

Dabur India Limited vs Emami Limited on 28 May, 2004

In Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Ltd., , the advertisement of the defendant exhorted the viewers to take Amritprash and not Chawanprash in summers. The Court found this statement also to be disparaging.

Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 17 - M Sharma - Full Document

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 497050

Reckitt & Colman Of India Ltd. vs Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. on 1 January, 1800

16. Nearer home the law was following the reasoning in the English decisions summarized by the High Court of Calcutta in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr., 1999 PTC (19) 741 and a Single Bench of this Court in Reckitt & Colman of India v. Kiwi TTK Ltd., 1996 PTC (6) 393.

Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

The Designs Act, 2000

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 475

The Copyright Act, 1957

Union of India - Act Cites 0 - Cited by 3366

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results