HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED Vs. CAVINCARE PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 8134/2010 (Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure)

(2.) The relief for injunction is premised on the Plaintiff's allegation that the impugned advertisement disparages the shampoo manufactured by it; which is sold in sachets priced at Re. 1 each. In order to appreciate the allegations made by the Plaintiff, it may be useful to extract the story board of the impugned advertisement

(3.) It is in the background of this impugned advertisement that the Plaintiff has put forth its case both, in the pleadings and in the submissions made before me. It is averred that the Plaintiff, is a leader in manufacturing and selling fast moving consumer goods (FMCG), which includes personal care products, such as skin creams, soaps, hair shampoos and other toiletries. With effect from 01.05.2010, the Plaintiff had launched a campaign which attempted to highlight the fact that, henceforth in terms of quantity it would offer 20% extra shampoo in sachets priced at Re. 1 or 0.50 paise. In other words, the Plaintiff purported to offer to the consumers, evidently 20% extra shampoo at the same price. The Defendant, it is averred, only to denigrate the Plaintiff's product has, maliciously released the impugned advertisement on 06.05.2010, which seeks to convey to the public at large, that all such shampoos, which includes the Plaintiff's shampoo, which are sold in sachets of Re. 1, are less efficacious in comparison to the Defendant's shampoo, which is sold under the brand name 'Chik' in sachets of Re. 1. In other words the impugned advertisement seeks to convey, to the consumers at large, that the quantity of shampoo contained in the Plaintiff's sachets is not sufficient for enabling the consumer to have a complete hair wash. It is the Plaintiff's case that even though the impugned advertisement does not specifically allude to it, the fact that the impugned advertisement uses 'pearly blue colour' shampoo, which is sold by the Plaintiff under its brand name 'Clinic Plus' (priced in sachets of Re. 1) it could only refer to the Plaintiff's shampoo and none other.