Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Perpetual injunction granted against disparaging ads for Robin Liquid Blue. Defendants restrained from publishing.

        Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. Versus M.P. Ramchandran and Ors

        Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. Versus M.P. Ramchandran and Ors - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Perpetual injunction against disparaging advertisements.
        2. Temporary injunction application.
        3. Alleged disparaging representations by the defendants.
        4. Arguments for vacating the interim order.
        5. Contentions regarding the nature of advertisements.
        6. Legal principles on trade disparagement.
        7. Analysis of the advertisements in question.
        8. Defendant's affidavit-in-opposition.
        9. Defendant's reliance on previous judgments.
        10. Court's view on the legality of the advertisements.

        Summary:

        1. Perpetual Injunction Against Disparaging Advertisements:
        The plaintiff sought a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from publishing advertisements that disparage the plaintiff's product, Robin Liquid Blue.

        2. Temporary Injunction Application:
        The plaintiff also applied for a temporary injunction of similar nature. An ex parte order was granted on 1st February 1996, restraining the defendants from publishing the disparaging advertisements.

        3. Alleged Disparaging Representations by the Defendants:
        The defendant No. 1 allegedly made disparaging representations about Robin Liquid Blue through advertisements published by defendant No. 2, the advertising agent.

        4. Arguments for Vacating the Interim Order:
        On 19th February 1996, the defendant No. 1 requested to vacate the interim order, arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to such an injunction based on the facts and law. The court retained the order, stating that the defendants' advertisements disparaged the plaintiff's product.

        5. Contentions Regarding the Nature of Advertisements:
        The defendants contended that their advertisements did not specifically target the plaintiff's product but the entire class of blue whiteners. They argued that the statements in the advertisements were true and based on scientific research, asserting their product's superiority.

        6. Legal Principles on Trade Disparagement:
        The court outlined the legal principles:
        - A tradesman can claim his goods are the best or better than competitors, even if untrue.
        - He can compare his goods' advantages over others.
        - He cannot claim competitors' goods are bad, as it constitutes defamation.
        - If defamation occurs, an action for damages and an injunction is permissible.

        7. Analysis of the Advertisements in Question:
        The court found that the advertisements specifically targeted the plaintiff's product by showing its container and price, implying it was uneconomical and technologically inferior. The advertisements suggested that the plaintiff's product left blue patches on clothes, effectively defaming it.

        8. Defendant's Affidavit-in-Opposition:
        The defendant No. 1 denied targeting the plaintiff's product, claiming the advertisements referred to the general class of blue whiteners. They argued that the bottle shown did not resemble the plaintiff's product and that their statements were factual and scientifically based.

        9. Defendant's Reliance on Previous Judgments:
        The defendant No. 1 cited judgments from the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, which required proof of falsity for claims of disparagement. However, the court noted that such proof is not necessary in a civil suit for damages.

        10. Court's View on the Legality of the Advertisements:
        The court concluded that the advertisements defamed the plaintiff's product by implying it was inferior and harmful. The court confirmed the interim order, restraining the defendants from publishing the disparaging advertisements until the suit's disposal.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found