Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.57 seconds)
Dabur India Limited vs Marico Limited on 28 December, 2020 cites

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

13. Mr. Sudhir Chandra and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ld. Senior Counsels appearing for the Defendant, submit that the law in this regard is quite well settled. Vehement reliance is placed on the ld. Division Bench's judgment in Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. and Godrej Sara - Lee, 167 (2010) DLT 278, to submit that advertising forms a part of commercial free speech under Article 19(1)(A). The advertisement of the Defendant does not denigrate, disparage or defame the product of the Plaintiff. The use of the term saadaharan or ordinary does not mean that the Plaintiff's product is being denigrated. It merely means that the Defendant has better and additional qualities. Mr. Chandra, ld. Senior Counsel further refers to a circular issued by the Ministry of AYUSH to argue that in terms of the said circular, various immunity boosting measures have been prescribed by the Ministry and as per the said circular, an addition of tulsi and other ingredients would boost immunity. It is on the basis of the said circular that the claims in the advertisement have been made by the Defendant.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 32 - R Shakdher - Full Document

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

15. Insofar as chocolate chyawanprash is concerned, it is submitted that the same is not plead in the plaint. Further, it is urged that the use of the expression "ordinary" is to convey the context and the existing products in the market in general and not to defame or disparage the Plaintiff's product in any manner. There are a large number of advertisements which use the word "ordinary" or "saadharan". Reliance is placed by the ld. Senior Counsel for the Defendant on the judgment in Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Limited, 129 (2006) DLT 265 and Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd. [CS (OS) 246/2013, decided on 18th April, 2013]. It is further submitted that there is no allegation of any factual miss-statement in the advertisement.
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 25 - M B Lokur - Full Document
1