Court dismisses injunction application, suit alleging disparagement, plaintiff concealing facts, grants defendant's injunction vacation with costs.

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Versus Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd.

Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Versus Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd. - 2006 (32)PTC 307 (Del) Issues Involved:
1. Whether the defendant's advertisement disparages and denigrates the plaintiff's product.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting the advertisement.
3. Whether the plaintiff approached the court with clean hands and disclosed all material facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the defendant's advertisement disparages and denigrates the plaintiff's product:

The plaintiff argued that the defendant's advertisement, which highlights the advantage of its product 'Mortein' over the plaintiff's products, denigrates the plaintiff's insecticide products marketed under the trade name 'HIT'. The plaintiff claimed that the advertisement depicted a lady confused by using two cans (red and black) representing the plaintiff's products to tackle cockroaches and mosquitoes, suggesting these products are ineffective and inconvenient.

The defendant contended that the advertisement merely emphasized the convenience of its product, which can kill both cockroaches and mosquitoes, unlike the plaintiff's two separate products. The defendant asserted that it did not disparage the plaintiff's products but only highlighted the superior feature of its product.

The court analyzed the principles of comparative advertising, noting that an advertiser can boast about its product's superiority but cannot disparage a competitor's product. The court found that the defendant's advertisement did not disparage the plaintiff's products but only compared them, emphasizing the convenience of a single product over two separate ones. The advertisement did not show the plaintiff's products in a poor light or suggest they were ineffective.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting the advertisement:

The court examined whether the plaintiff's products were disparaged in the defendant's advertisement. It was determined that the advertisement did not denigrate the plaintiff's products but merely highlighted the convenience of the defendant's product. The court referred to previous judgments, emphasizing that while comparative advertising is permissible, it must not discredit or denigrate a competitor's product.

The court concluded that the defendant's advertisement did not disparage the plaintiff's products and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting the advertisement.

3. Whether the plaintiff approached the court with clean hands and disclosed all material facts:

The defendant argued that the plaintiff did not approach the court with clean hands, as it falsely claimed to have become aware of the impugned advertisement only in September 2005, whereas the advertisement had been aired since February 2005. The defendant provided evidence showing that the advertisement had been broadcast repeatedly on various TV channels since February 2005.

The court found the plaintiff's claim of acquiring knowledge of the advertisement only in September 2005 to be inaccurate, noting that the plaintiff, being a market leader, could not have remained unaware of the advertisement for such a long period. The court concluded that the plaintiff was guilty of concealing material facts and had not approached the court with clean hands.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an injunction and the suit, finding that the defendant's advertisement did not disparage the plaintiff's products and that the plaintiff had concealed material facts. The defendant's application to vacate the ex-parte injunction was allowed with costs.