TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....p with a new product DETTOL HEALTHY KITCHEN Dish and Slab Gel", which is purportedly the first kitchen cleaner with an active ingredient (Lactic Acid) which helps kill germs. The plaintiff claims that the product has clinically been proven to have germ killing capabilities and is claimed to be much more efficacious than ordinary kitchen cleaners. 3. To promote their new product, the plaintiff came out with an advertising campaign on television comparing the germ killing capabilities of its product and the defendant's VIM LIQUID. In addition, the plaintiff also introduced a print advertising campaign. Both these advertisements purportedly contained truthful statements about the germ killing capabilities of the two competing products. Admittedly, the defendant herein filed a suit against the plaintiff for disparaging advertisement before the Calcutta High Court vide Suit No. TN 50 of 2013. However, the Court passed a consent order in this matter allowing the plaintiff to continue with the impugned television advertisement subject to small variations. 4. The plaintiff contends that in retaliation, the defendant came out with an advertisement published in the Sunday Times Edition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat despite being more effective in respect of germ killing, it also has a toxicology report declaring that the plaintiff's DETTOL HEALTHY KITCHEN does not result in any human health concern. 8. The plaintiff contends that this advertisement campaign by the defendant is outside the parameters of allowed competitive advertising and blatantly denigrates the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's brand. And that the defendant being in the same sector as that of the plaintiff is well aware of the goodwill and reputation attached to the plaintiff's brand DETTOL and is aiming at illegally destroying this reputation for its own commercial benefits thereby causing an irreparable injury to the plaintiff. It is also contended that the defendants are attempting to increase the market share of their product VIM LIQUID by defaming and disparaging the worth and reputation of the plaintiff's product because, the plaintiff's product is a new entrant into the same market sector as the defendant's. 9. The plaintiff, relied on the cases of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2008 (38) PTC 139 (Del); Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (PTY) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever South....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the defendant against the plaintiff in the Calcutta High Court. 12. In furtherance of its contentions, the defendant has relied upon the cases of Imperial Tobacco Company v. Albert Bonnan, AIR 1928 Cal 1; Reckit Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Naga Ltd. & Ors., 2003 (26) PTC 535 (Del); Marico Ltd. v. Adani Wilmar Ltd., CS(OS) Nos. 246 and 319 of 2013; Reckitt Benckiser South Africa (PTY) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever South Africa (PTY) Ltd.; Reckitt Colman of India Ltd v. M.P. Ramchandran & Anr, 1999 PTC (19) 741; Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd, AIR 2008 GUJ 94; Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del); Dabur India Ltd v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd and Godrej Sara-Lee, 2010 (44) PTC 254 (Del); and Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 3105. 13. I have heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels for both parties and also perused through the documents placed on record including the impugned newspaper advertisement. I am of the considered view that prima facie the impugned advertisement subtly yet certainly targets the plaintiff's brand DETTOL and its product DETTOL HEALTHY KITCHEN. I have arrived at this conclusion fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Pepsi Co. Case (supra) wherein it was held that comparative advertising is permissible as long as while comparing own with rival/competitors product, the latter‟s product is not derogated, discredited, disgraced, though while comparing some amount of „showing down‟ is implicit; however the same should be within the confines of De Beers Abrasive v. International General Electric Co., 1975 (2) All ER 599, which Courts in India have frequently referred to. The case sums up the law relating to false advertising causing injury to rival traders group pithily as under:- "the law is that any trader is entitled to puff his own goods even though such puff as a matter of pure logic involves the denigration of his rival's good...Notices...reading 'the best tailor in the world', 'the best tailor in this town' and the 'best tailor in this street' do not commit an actionable offence. Where however, the situation is not that the trader is puffing his own goods but turns to denigrate the goods of his rival...then the situation is not so clear-cut. The statement 'my goods are better than X's' is only a more dramatic presentation of what is implicit in the statement 'my good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... plaintiff's brand DETTOL is synonymous with the term antiseptic in the FMCG market in India. The plaintiff has also furnished Google image results for the search term „antiseptic‟, wherein the plaintiff's products constitute the majority of the search results. Though I am not squarely relying on the finding of this Court in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2008 (38) PTC 139 (Del.) (DETTOL Soap Case), it is pertinent to note that the Court has observed the existence of the notion that all DETTOL products are antiseptic. In the Dettol Case, it was observed by this Court thus - "It is true that the plaintiff's soap - DETTOL Original - is not an antiseptic soap whereas the soap shown in the advertisement has been referred to as "an ordinary antiseptic soap". An argument was advanced on the part of the defendant that because of this, the soap shown in the advertisement did not and could not refer to the plaintiff's soap. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the reference to an antiseptic soap in the said advertisement is, in fact, a further pointer to the plaintiff's product, although, the plaintiff's soap - DETTOL Or....