Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, a manufacturer of household brands including 'Nihar' amla hair oil, filed a commercial IP suit alleging that the defendant, Dabur India Limited, aired a television commercial that disparaged the plaintiff's product and infringed its registered trademark. The plaintiff claimed it held a 42.6% market share by volume and 30.8% by value in the amla hair oil segment. The impugned commercial showed a woman rejecting a bottle resembling the plaintiff's product and choosing the defendant's, with a voiceover stating that the defendant's oil was better. The plaintiff argued that this constituted disparagement and trade libel. The defendant contended that the commercial was permissible comparative advertising and did not identify the plaintiff's product. The court analyzed the commercial and found that it clearly referred to the plaintiff's product, as the bottle shown had similar features to the plaintiff's 'Nihar' bottle. The court held that while comparative advertising is allowed, it must not denigrate the competitor's goods. The commercial, by showing rejection of the plaintiff's product and praising the defendant's, crossed the line into disparagement. The court also noted that the defendant's product was not superior in any material aspect. On the balance of convenience, the court found that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the commercial continued, whereas the defendant could modify its advertisement. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting the impugned commercial until the disposal of the suit.
Headnote
A) Trade Marks - Disparagement of Goods - Comparative Advertising - The court examined whether a competitor's advertisement disparages the plaintiff's product by making false or misleading claims. Held that while comparative advertising is permissible, it must not denigrate or disparage the competitor's goods. The court found that the defendant's commercial, by showing a woman rejecting the plaintiff's product and praising the defendant's, crossed the line from permissible puffery to disparagement. (Paras 1-10) B) Trade Marks - Infringement - Registered Trademark - The plaintiff alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'NIHAR' by the defendant's use of a similar mark. The court noted that the defendant's mark was not identical but considered whether there was deceptive similarity. However, the primary focus was on disparagement. (Paras 2-5) C) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Balance of Convenience - The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from airing the impugned commercial, holding that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, as the commercial could cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff's reputation and market share. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Defendant's television commercial disparages the Plaintiff's goods and infringes its registered trademark, and whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction.
Final Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining the defendant from telecasting the impugned television commercial until the disposal of the suit.
Law Points
- Disparagement of goods
- comparative advertising
- trademark infringement
- trade libel
- injunctions in IP suits
