EVEREADY INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. GILLETTE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interim order was passed on 17th February, 2012 in the above interim application, in connection with the above suit. The suit complains of disparagement of goods. The plaintiff is Eveready. The act of disparagement is attributed to Gillette, the defendant. According to the plaintiff any depiction of red dry cell batteries would refer to any of their products in the estimation of any ordinary and reasonable person. They are aggrieved by the television advertisement storyboard in Annexure 'H' at page 179 to 182 of the petition and the print media advertisement being Annexure 'I' at page 183 thereof. The plaintiffs said goods were allegedly disparaged by reference to "ten times" and "powerful". In the advertisements, according to the plaintiff, the defendant attempted to show that the defendant's goods were ten times superior to the plaintiffs goods and that the plaintiffs goods were ten times inferior. This kind of an advertisement was clearly against the law of disparagement of goods and could not be shown.

(2.) At the time of moving of the application on 17th February, 2012 I had passed an order of injunction restraining the defendant, their servants and agents from publishing or showing the advertisement depicted in Annexure "H" of the petition till 24th February, 2012 or until further order whichever was earlier. The application was moved ex parte. Thereafter this interim order was extended from time to time.

(3.) Last Wednesday i.e. 14th March, 2012 the above interim order stood the scrutiny of the Court in the presence or the learned Counsel for the defendant, who made very powerful submissions for vacation of the interim order.