9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 are about 30-35 crores out of a total sales of ₹ 230 crores. The Plaintiff has vehemently stressed that Dettol is the leader in brand equity. 2. On 14.2.2003 the Defendants had been restrai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endant..... 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 Mellin, 1895 AC 154, the House of Lords ruled that an action for libel and defamation or slander of goods of a rival trader would not lie and no injunction to restrain the defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 Plaintiff's soap Dettol is necessarily, therefore, a cosmetic as defined in Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Dettol soap is neither labelled nor marketed as an anti-bact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 defense 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 qualities as the Dettol liquid. It matters little whether this misunderstanding has been contrived by the manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld have not been granted in the face of the rejection of the Plaintiff's 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 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 stated that the Plaintiff was unaware of these advertisements since they were telecast in South India. It has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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., 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 Plaintiff's say that the latter's goods are bad. If this occurs, it is guilty of slandering the Plaintiff's goods. I am unable to accept this argument for the simple reason that what the advertisement brings out, to the obvious discomfort of the Plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
