Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. AIR 2005 Del 102

By

Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2005 Case Summary/Brief


Plaint/Facts

  1. An action for the infringement of the registered trademark under S.29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was raised by the plaintiff. 
  2. The suit was filed over a visual advertisement launched by the defendants for their product which was allegedly disparaging the rival product of the plaintiff.
  3. In the advertisement, a cine-star has stopped a person from buying "Dabur Lal Dant Manjan Powder" by showing that the powder is more abrasive and dangerous as compared to the defendants' product. As a result of the advertisement, the plaintiff's share in Ayurvedic tooth powder declined from earlier 80%.

Contentions of the Counsel for the defendant

  1. The advertisement doesn't identify or refer to the plaintiff's product.
  2. The defendants are entitled to point out the defects in the rival product while praising its own product.
  3. The criticism was based on the studies conducted in the USA which had not been doubted. Also, the plaintiff did not deny the assertions made in the advertisement.
  4. The defendants agreed to drop the red container/bottle which allegedly identifies the plaintiff.
  5. The balance of convenience is in favor of the defendants as they have the right to disclose to the public the injury being caused by deleterious products.
  6. The meaning of disparagement includes a false statement. Since the defendant's statement was not false, it can't be said to be disparaging. They relied on Salmond on Torts, which held that "the tort requires the making of a false statement, with malice, to some person other than the plaintiff, as a result of which the plaintiff suffers damage".
  7. By relying on Carter-Ruck on Libel and Slander they contended that an action for libel arises only when a false statement disparages the goods as well as the trader.
  8. By relying on Eastwood v. Holmes they stated the disparagement must be made towards a particular person or product and not a class of persons/products.
  9. By relying on the Bastobel Paints case they stated, that a defamatory statement shall not be restrained if the person is ready to justify in the court of action unless it is obviously untruthful and libelous

Decisions

  1. The plaintiff is entitled to an injunction.
  2. The defendants are restrained from telecasting the advertisement.

Reasoning

  1. The identity of the product can not be decided at this stage.
  2. The 4th principle set out in the Reckitt Coleman and Dabur India case prevents the defendants from slandering their rival products as bad and inferior.
  3. The defendant's contentions that the assertions were not denied can not be sustained as the averments in para 15&16 of the plaint clearly mention that the advertisement was dubious, deceptive, illogical, and irrational.
  4. Even in the case of a general criticism made for a class of product, disparagement is possible as held in Dabur's judgment following the Reckitt Coleman judgment.
  5. The generic disparagement of a rival product without specifically identifying the rival product is equally objectionable.
  6. The Bastobel Paints case was related to libel and not commercial advertisement. Also, it is not binding on us, since it is an English judgment.
  7. The balance of convenience is in favor of the plaintiff as the effect of the advertisement aired can not be repaired readily and easily.
  8. Since the statement was made by a well-known cine star, it will definitely have an immediate impact on the minds of the viewer and possible purchaser. The plaintiff has thus made a primary facie case.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more