GRAND CHEMICAL WORKS Vs. NIRMALA DYECHEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application moved by defendant No.2 for clarification of the order dated 14.2.2003, passed in IA.1865/2003 to the effect, that the injunction granted does not apply to the advertisement of the applicant/defendant appearing at pages 65 to 69.

(2.) Plaintiffs have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction to restrain the defendants from displaying or taking out advertisement in the media, telecasting or broadcasting the advertisements, which are defamatory or disparaging of the plaintiff's product. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the manufacturer of "phenyl". During the course of arguments, as recorded in the order dated 14.2.2003, plaintiff had taken the Court through the advertisements, annexures 3 and 4, which were being broadcast and telecasted. It was urged that the pictorial and audio text showed that the defendant apart from eulogising the qualities of their product "Domex" were undermining and disparaging the qualities of the plaintiffs' product "Phenyl". This was done by showing in the advertisement a phenyl bottle with comments. It was brought out that "phenyl" is incapable of achieving the results which are achieved by the "Domex" i.e., the defendant's product. Two jars, one using "phenyl" and the other using "Domex" were shown, with resultant effect.

(3.) From a perusal of the order dated 14.2.2003, as passed, it is clear that the main plank of plaintiffs' case was the disparaging manner in which the advertisement dealt with plaintiffs' product.