2008 (7) TMI 1045 - HC - Companies Law

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the depiction in the advertisement of the defendant of soap refers to the Dettol soap of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the advertisement of the defendant disparages or denigrates the soap of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the impugned advertisement seeks only to promote the superiority of the defendant LIFEBUOY soap over an ordinary antiseptic soap?
4. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts? If so, its effect?
5. Whether the impugned advertisement constitutes an attack on the goodwill and reputation of the Dettol brand of the plaintiff?
6. Whether the present suit is barred on account of the provisions of the MRTP Act, 1969 and/or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages for disparagement, denigration, loss of goodwill and reputation? If so, the extent thereof?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to punitive and exemplary damages? If so, the extent thereof?
9. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1:
The court examined whether the orange soap shown in the advertisement referred to the plaintiff's Dettol soap. The advertisement depicted an orange soap bar with contours and curvature similar to that of the plaintiff's Dettol Original soap. The court concluded that the soap in the advertisement was designed to give an impression of the plaintiff's Dettol Original soap. The court held that the orange bar of soap in the advertisement referred to the plaintiff's Dettol Original soap, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2:
The court analyzed whether the advertisement disparaged or denigrated the plaintiff's soap. The advertisement portrayed the orange soap as harmful and used by naive people needing prayers for protection. The court concluded that the advertisement denigrated the orange soap, which was identified as the plaintiff's Dettol Original soap. The court held that the advertisement disparaged the plaintiff's soap, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 3:
The court evaluated whether the advertisement merely promoted the superiority of the defendant's LIFEBUOY soap over an ordinary antiseptic soap. The court found that the advertisement not only promoted the defendant's soap but also disparaged the plaintiff's soap by showing it in a bad light. The court held that the advertisement did not merely promote the superiority of the defendant's soap but also disparaged the plaintiff's soap, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 4:
The court considered whether the plaintiff was guilty of suppressing material facts. The defendant argued that the plaintiff misled the court into believing that Dettol soap was an antiseptic soap. The court found that the plaintiff had not claimed that its Dettol Original soap was an antiseptic soap and had made a clear distinction between its antiseptic liquid and toilet soap. The court held that the plaintiff was not guilty of suppression of material facts, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 5:
The court examined whether the advertisement constituted an attack on the goodwill and reputation of the Dettol brand. Given the findings on issues 1, 2, and 3, the court concluded that the advertisement attacked the goodwill and reputation of the Dettol brand. The court held that the advertisement constituted an attack on the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 6:
The court addressed whether the suit was barred by the MRTP Act, 1969, and/or the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court found that there was no express or implied bar in the MRTP Act or the Consumer Protection Act that would prevent the plaintiff from seeking remedies in a civil court. The court held that the suit was not barred by these acts, deciding the issue in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 7, 8, and 9:
The court considered the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, including damages for disparagement and punitive damages. The court agreed that the plaintiff was entitled to relief but noted the lack of evidence to quantify the exact loss or damage. The court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff and issued an injunction restraining the defendant from issuing or telecasting the impugned advertisement or disparaging the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court also awarded costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Relief:
The court decreed an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, restraining the defendant from issuing or telecasting the impugned advertisement or disparaging the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The court awarded punitive damages of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff and costs of the suit.

← Previous Next →