(1.) There are two Appeals. This common order will dispose of both. Both appeals arise from a common order and judgment dtd. 16/6/2022 (AK Menon, J). In Commercial IP Suit (L) No.805 of 2021, Hindustan Unilever Limited ("HUL") is the Plaintiff. In Commercial IP Suit (L) No.1087 of 2022, Wipro Enterprises Private Limited ("Wipro") is the Plaintiff. The Defendant is common, USV Private Limited ("USVPL").
(2.) HUL and Wipro both complained that USVPL launched an advertising campaign promoting and publicising its product under the brand SEBAMED. They claimed that the advertising campaign run by USVPL constituted unlawful disparagement and denigration USV Pvt Ltd vs Hindustan Unilever Ltd and Anr And USV Pvt Ltd vs Wipro Enterprises Pvt Ltd 904-OSIAL-22107-2022-IN-COMAPL-22103-2022+J.doc of HUL and Wipro products, in which the Plaintiffs had valuable intellectual property rights. To be perfectly clear at the beginning, HUL sought protection for four of its products under the brand names, LUX, DOVE, PEARS and RIN. Clearly RIN is not of a class with the other three because it is a detergent. For its part Wipro sought protection for its product SANTOOR.
(3.) Mr Dhond, learned Senior Advocate for USVPL in appeal, submits that in his 74-page judgment the learned Single Judge was materially in error on several distinct aspects. First, he did not properly appreciate the defence of 'truth' taken by USVPL. Second, the learned Single Judge incorrectly held that USVPL's products and the Plaintiffs' products were incomparable. Third, the learned Single Judge ought to have delivered an authoritative pronouncement on the law in regard to the limits of what is or is not permissible in what we will call comparative advertising campaigns. By this, we mean advertisements for products where rival products are juxtaposed and set one against the other, with the advertiser making claims in regard to one and purporting to show how it is superior to the other products.