2013 (4) TMI 884 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permanent injunction restraining the defendant from broadcasting, printing, and publishing advertisements.
2. Allegations of disparagement of the plaintiff's product.
3. Claims of misleading and false advertisements.
4. Applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules.

Summary:

1. Permanent Injunction:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from broadcasting, printing, and publishing advertisements for its cooking oil under the brand name FORTUNE, claiming that these advertisements disparaged the plaintiff's product, SAFFOLA. The court heard arguments from both parties and reserved orders on the applications for interim relief.

2. Allegations of Disparagement:
The plaintiff argued that the defendant's advertisements made false, unsubstantiated, and misleading claims about Fortune RBO being the "healthiest oil in the world" and healthier than SAFFOLA. The plaintiff contended that these advertisements were unfair, disparaging, and caused irreparable harm to its reputation. The defendant countered that the advertisements merely extolled the virtues of its own product without denigrating the plaintiff's product.

3. Claims of Misleading and False Advertisements:
The plaintiff alleged that the health claims made by the defendant were false and not based on scientific research, violating Section 24 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. The defendant argued that the claims were supported by scientific studies and that the plaintiff had not accurately portrayed the advertisements. The court noted that while comparative advertising is permissible, it should not be disparaging or misleading.

4. Applicability of the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules:
The plaintiff argued that the defendant's advertisements violated the Food Safety and Standards Act and Rules by making false health claims. The defendant contended that their product complied with statutory requirements and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any factual basis for its claims. The court found that the advertisements did not denigrate the plaintiff's product and that the claims made were not entirely untrue.

Conclusion:
The court held that the advertisements did not disparage the plaintiff's product and were permissible under the principles of comparative advertising. The applications for interim injunction were dismissed, with the court noting that the final adjudication of the suit would not be affected by this decision.