Court Upholds Appeal: Stops Airing of Disparaging Ads But Allows Parody and Trademark Use in Slogan.

The HC partially upheld the appeal, restraining respondents from airing commercials that disparaged the appellant's product and from broadcasting the roller coaster commercial, which infringed on the appellant's copyright. However, it ruled that the respondents' parody of the slogan and use of the trade mark did not constitute infringement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disparagement of Appellant's Product
2. Infringement of Copyright and Literary Work
3. Infringement of Trade Mark
4. Copying of Roller Coaster Commercial

Summary:

1. Disparagement of Appellant's Product:
The court examined whether the respondents' commercials disparaged the appellants' product "PEPSI COLA." The commercials depicted "PEPSI" as a "Bacchon Wala Drink" (meant for children) and mocked it by showing a boy feeling embarrassed for choosing it. The court held that this portrayal amounted to disparagement as it conveyed a message that "PEPSI" is inferior and only suitable for children, thus denigrating the appellants' product.

2. Infringement of Copyright and Literary Work:
The appellants claimed ownership and copyright of the slogan "Yeh Dil Maange More" and argued that its use by the respondents in a mocking manner constituted infringement. The court found that the slogan is a literary work and is copyrightable. However, the court held that the respondents' use of the phrase "Yeh Dil Maange No More" in a parody context did not amount to infringement of the appellants' copyright.

3. Infringement of Trade Mark:
The appellants argued that the use of the "Globe Device" and the word "PAPPI" in the respondents' commercials infringed their registered trade mark. The court noted that comparative advertising is permissible as long as it does not denigrate the competitor's product. The court found that the respondents' use of the appellants' trade mark in the commercials did not constitute infringement as it was not used in the course of trade to indicate the origin of the respondents' goods.

4. Copying of Roller Coaster Commercial:
The appellants claimed that the respondents copied their roller coaster commercial, thus infringing their copyright. The court observed that the respondents' commercial was a literal imitation of the appellants' original work with some variations. The court held that this constituted infringement of the appellants' copyright and restrained the respondents from showing the roller coaster commercial in its present form.

Conclusion:
The court partly accepted the appeal, restraining the respondents from showing the disparaging commercials and the roller coaster commercial in its present form. The observations made were prima facie and would not affect the merits of the case.

---