Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private ... vs Hindustan Unilever Limited on 26 September, 2022 cites

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

The propositions as stated in Reckitt and Colman India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.18 are good law when considered in the context of puffery as contrasted with statements that hold out representations of facts. Such representations of facts are required to be true and not misleading. Puffery and exaggerated opinions are merely intended to attract the attention of targeted customers; such statements are neither intended as representations or warranties, nor accepted as representation of facts. Puffery and hyperbole are not tested on the anvil of accuracy or truth. There is an element of creativeness, which finds expression in puffery and hyperbole.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 38 - M Sinha - Full Document

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

In Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.21, this Court once again examined the law on disparagement and held that 17 Supra Note 14 18 Supra Note 14 19 Supra Note 8 20 Supra Note 1 21 Supra Note 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal FAO(OS)(COMM) 149/2021 Page 11 of 24 Signing Date:26.09.2022 whereas it is open for a person to exaggerate the claims relating to its goods or services and embellish their virtues or benefits; it is not open for a person to denigrate or disparage the goods of another person.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Wander Ltd. And Anr. vs Antox India P. Ltd. on 26 April, 1990

He referred to the decision in Wander Ltd. And Anr. v Antox India P. Ltd.7and contended that it is impermissible for the Appellate Court to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge unless it is shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely. He submitted that in the present case, the learned Single Judge had rightly applied the law and declined the interim injunction as, in his view, the impugned TVC-1, viewed as a whole, did not disparage and denigrate Reckitt's product.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1060 - Full Document

Colgate Palmolive Company And Anr. vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd. on 10 December, 2013

12. He referred to the decisions of this Court in Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.1 and Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.2. On the strength of the said decision, he contended that although puffery and hyperbole to promote one's product is permissible, it is not open for any person to denigrate or disparage the goods of another.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 20 - V Bakhru - Full Document

Gillette India Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd on 1 June, 2016

14. He also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Gillet India Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd.4 and contended that in a suit for disparagement, it would be necessary that the disparaging advertisements be restrained as pecuniary compensation at a later stage would be insufficient to compensate the loss suffered and damage caused due to disparagement.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1