Court Blocks TV Ad for Disparaging Dabur Chayawanprash, Preserving Market Share Amid Generic Term Debate.

Dabur India Limited Versus Emami Limited

Dabur India Limited Versus Emami Limited - 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del) Issues involved: Application for temporary injunction u/s Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding disparaging advertisement of a product.

Summary:
1. The plaintiff, a leading manufacturer of pharmaceutical products, markets Dabur Chayawanprash, claiming a 63% market share. The defendant introduced Himani Sona-Chandi Amritprash, airing a TV commercial disparaging Dabur Chayawanprash.

2. Plaintiff alleged the defendant's advertisement insinuated that Chayawanprash should not be consumed in summers, promoting Amritprash as a substitute, negatively impacting plaintiff's business. Defendant argued it was a general statement and 'Chayawanprash' is a generic term.

3. Legal principles from previous cases were cited, emphasizing a manufacturer's right to declare goods as best but not to defame competitors' products. The court analyzed the advertisement's impact on plaintiff's market share and the insinuation against Chayawanprash.

4. The court found the defendant's advertisement disparaging towards Chayawanprash, including Dabur Chayawanprash, affecting the plaintiff's market presence. The defendant's attempt to exclude Chayawanprash during summers for promoting Amritprash was deemed disparaging.

5. The defendant's argument that 'Chayawanprash' is a generic term and the advertisement did not directly reference plaintiff's product was rejected. The court held that the advertisement's message indirectly disparaged the plaintiff's product.

6. The court granted a temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from telecasting the impugned TV commercial during the lawsuit, acknowledging the disparaging nature of the advertisement towards the plaintiff's product. The application for injunction was allowed.