Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)
Years vs Mahanagar Telephone on 28 July, 2022 cites

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs Hindustan Lever Limited on 7 July, 2008

In Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Limited, CS (OS) 1359/2007, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that between clear cut cases of permissible comparative advertising and impermissible "rubbishing" of a rival‟s product, there may yet be a wide field of cases and the dividing line in such cases would have to be ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2022 20:05:35 :::CIS 18 drawn based on the test whether a reasonable man would take the claim of the alleged slanderer seriously or take it with the proverbial"
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 12 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Tata Press Limited vs Mahanagar Telephone-Nigam Limited & ... on 3 August, 1995

Rs.47/- for 175 ml., whereas the pack of the plaintiff-company of 'Dabur AMLA HAIR OIL' is available at Rs.90/- for 180 ml. The tag line which is mentioned in the Advertisement is "AUR QUALITY? AAP KHUD AAZMA KE DEKHIYE". At this stage itself, this Court will again refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Press Ltd. Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and others (supra). In this judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that advertisement is a part of 'commercial speech' and 'commercial speech' is a part of the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the restrictions which can be imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution are contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution itself and 'commercial speech' which is deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article 19(2) and can be regulated/prohibited by the State.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 43 - K Singh - Full Document

M/S Gulf Oil Corportion Ltd vs Commissioner Of C.Ex. & Service Tax on 1 January, 2016

not stated that this holding out being made in the Advertisement is either misleading or untruthful. In other words, this holding out is stated to be correct as per respective rate of the products of the plaintiff and the defendant. Now, the question is as to whether the tag line "AUR QUALITY? AAP KHUD AAZMA KE DEKHIYE" amounts to disparagement or an innuendo or not? In other words, whether this tag line belittles the product of the plaintiff or not? As per Black's Law Dictionary, 'Disparagement of goods' is defined as a statement about a competitor's goods which is untrue or misleading and is made to influence or tends to influence the public not to buy. The definition of 'Puffing' as per Black's Law Dictionary is an expression of opinion by seller not made as a representation of fact. Gulf Oil Corp. V. Federal Trade Commission, C.C.A.5, 150 F. 2d 106, 109. Exaggeration by a salesperson concerning quality of goods (not considered a legally binding promise); usually concerns opinions rather than facts.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next