DABUR INDIA LTD Vs. COLGATE PALMOLIVE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application seeking directions has been filed pursuant to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th October, 2004 which reads as follows:-

(2.) As per the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench, a modified version has been proposed by the defendant by this application. Some of the captions in the modified version, wherein the purchaser is asking for a Dant Manjan and the Star of the advertisement Sunil Shetty is warning him about 'Sadharan Dant Manjan' which is said to be 'khurdara' (rough) on the teeth, has been objected to by the learned counsel for the plaintiff on the ground that this does not depart from the generic disparagement proscribed by the judgment of this Court dated 9th September, 2004. During the hearing certain discussions took place between the counsel regarding the modified version and during the course of the hearing this application, the parties were asked to suggest versions different from that annexed to the application. It is, however, contended that the suggestions : given by the either side for the alterations are not acceptable and this Court was therefore urged to decide this application in respect of the annexed advertisement campaign and considering the fact that the divergence of views clearly show that the resolution of the dispute by amicable settlement is not possible.

(3.) The law of disparagement of rival product was set out in Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Limited and followed in the order of this Court dated 9th September, 2004. In the aforesaid judgment a generic disparagement as opposed to specific disparagement was discussed in paragraph 19 as follows:-