Delhi HC Restrains Dabur From Circulating WhatApp Ad On Amla Hair Oil; Refuses To Grant Interim Injunction Against Print Ad
A Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Navin Chawla has restrained Dabur India Limited from circulating its Whatsapp Advertisement on its hair oil, but has refused to injunct the print advertisement. In that context, the Court had observed that "I find that while the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case against the Print Advertisement. At the same time, the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case as far as the WhatsApp message/Advertisement is concerned".
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, among others, appeared for the plaintiff, while Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, among others, appeared for the defendant.
In this case, the plaintiff contended that Dabur's statement, "Yaad Rakhna, Sasta Aawla, balo ko mehenga padega", disparaged the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation of its product. It was argued that the statement was alarming and threatened the consumers against all other cheaper-in-price Amla Hair Oils. The plaintiffs contended generic disparagement.
On hearing the parties, the Court observed that "The reference to the plaintiff, if any, can be drawn only by a leap of imagination, which in my prima facie opinion is not warranted. It is merely suggestive of the fact that there could be severe repercussions in using cheaper Amla Hair Oils-cheaper being in quality and price. The leap of imagination that the plaintiff wants this Court to take is too wide."
In a similar context, the Court further observed that "the advertisement is to be judged from point of view of an ordinary consumer and his perception of the advertisement, which in my prima facie opinion would be to see the advertisement as a puffery, rather than from a sensitive competitor like the plaintiff".
Rejecting the plaintiff's claim, the Court took the considered view that "the advertisement merely suggests that buying Amla Hair Oil, which is cheaper in price or quality, might be harmful to the hair. This can be stated to be an opinion but not defamatory of all hair oils that are cheaper in price to that of the plaintiff".
Further, the Court observed that although the Whatsapp advertisement showed that the impugned Print Advertisement was aimed at the plaintiff, the ordinary consumer would not have the benefit of having the WhatsApp Advertisement/message along with the Print Advertisement before him/her.
In that context, it was said that "It would only be the persons who receive the WhatsApp Advertisement/message along with the Print Advertisement, who would be able to make the connection between the two. Even otherwise, the WhatsApp message/Advertisement merely reflects that the Print Advertisement is aimed against the plaintiff as it calls upon the shop employees to display Print Advertisement, therefore, the Print Advertisement has to be considered independent of the WhatsApp message/ Advertisement and the two cannot be read together, as has been prayed for by the plaintiff".
Subsequently, the applications were disposed of.
Cause Title: Marico Limited vs Dabur India Limited
Click here to read/download the Judgment
