9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that an antiseptic soap is needed. It is not in dispute that the soap which was handed over to the doctor is identifiable by viewers as the Plaintiffs product, namely, Dettol Soap. The doctor further states in the commercial that "at a time like this, you do not need just antiseptic, you need a protector". The Defendant s ayurvedic soap is then shown and it is concurrently stated that it is a body rakshak soap, the first ayurvedic soap that completely removes all seven kinds of terms and protects from infection. The Plaintiff s grievance is that this commercial disparages its Dettol Soap. It is averred that the intention behind the commercial is malicious, especially in view of the trade literature which shows that Dettol Brand sales ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to express displeasure or dissatisfaction therewith, nor is an advertisement actionable which does no more than state a claim that the plaintiff s goods are inferior to those of the defendant...... It is firmly established that malice, express or implied, in the making of the slanderous statement is an essential ingredient of a cause of action for slander of title". Halsbury s Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Volume 45 defines tort as civil rights of action which are available for the recovery of unliquidated damages by persons who have sustained injury or loss from acts, statements or omissions of others in breach of duty or contravention of a right imposed or conferred by law rather than by agreement . In Timothy White v. Gustav Mel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatements have been made by the Defendant. As I see it, the T.V. commercial has the effect of making the viewer alive to two factors firstly, that Dettol Soap is not an antiseptic and, secondly that the Defendant s Ayush Soap is an antiseptic soap and a protector from infection. In these circumstances the second factor has not been agitated, and these orders should not be construed as granting an imprimatur to the Defendant s soap as possessing antiseptic qualities. 6. Mr. Dave, who appears for the Defendant, has drawn my attention to the fact that Dettol Soap is marketed as a toilet soap under IS:2888-1983 and not as an anti-bacterial toilet soap which falls in the classification IS:11479-1985. The Plaintiffs soap Dettol is necessarily ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consumer aware of his mistaken impression, the Plaintiff cannot be heard to complain of such action. I find it difficult, nay impossible, to hold a party liable for libel when all that has been stated by the competitor is the truth. Truth is always a complete defence against any assault or challenge regardless of whether any damage is sustained as a result of it. It is indeed unfortunate that the Government has not established an authority armed with sufficient powers to put a stop to false advertising. It is not difficult to distinguish between claims that are exaggerated and those which are false; the latter should be stopped by a Regulatory Authority. The public perception is that Dettol soap shares the same medicinal and curative quali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Plaintiff. It must be realistically prudent to apprehend that an ex parte ad interim injunction would have not been granted in the face of the rejection of the Plaintiffs complaint by a specialised body such as the ASCI. While dealing with the accrual of the cause of action in paragraph 19 of the plaint, while there is mention of a consumer survey conducted in October, 2002, there is a total blackout regarding the proceedings before the ASCI. Such a material and significant suppression can only lead to be indicative of misleading the Court and on this score alone would completely defeat the Suit. It has been alleged by the Defendant that the T.V. commercials have been widely broadcast since June, 2002. In Reply it has been state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation is that it has the right to elect which relief it should pursue. In view of section 41( h ) this is a fallacious contention. The Defendant has drawn attention to the fact that the Plaintiff had approached the Commission on earlier occasions but had failed in its efforts and it is for this reason that it has preferred to come to this Court. Mr. Tyagi has sought support on the decision in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. 63 (1996) DLT 29 and in particular to the 4th consideration in paragraph 11 thereof. It is his submission that the Defendant cannot while saying his goods are better than the Plaintiffs say that the latter s goods are bad. If this occurs, it is guilty of slandering the Plaintiffs goods. I am unable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
