News By/Courtesy: Kabir Jaiswal | 08 Jul 2019 16:52pm IST

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The Delhi High Court rejected Dabur's request to restrict Emami from broadcasting, printing and publishing ZANDU CHYAVANPRASHAD advertisements in any media.
  • It also noted the claim of Dabur that Chyawanprash had been shown to be bad or unhealthy was misconceived, thus disregarding its reputation.
  • The Court also ruled that, by the manner of an affidavit submitted in the matter, Emami would be bound by the changes to the advertisements suggested by itself.

The Delhi High Court rejected Dabur's request to restrict Emami from broadcasting, printing and publishing ZANDU CHYAVANPRASHAD advertisements in any media. Dabur had requested an interim order on the ground that Emami's advertisements were disdainful and harmful to its product's (Chyawanprash) goodwill. The advertisements under scrutiny claimed that in contrast to Emami's product, other Chyawanprash products contained 50% sugar.

Emami had voluntarily created some changes in the initial advertisements after Dabur moved before the High Court. Before the Court, Dabur stated that Chyawanprash was detrimental as it was a case of generic disappearance, and Emami was misleading and misrepresenting the customers. It was argued that according to the Ayurvedic recipe, multiple herbs were used as ingredients to create Chyawanprash, thus requiring a large amount of sugar to create the item palatably. Dabur further asserted that the product of Emami was intended for patients with diabetes. It was, therefore, not permissible in law to compare a sugar-free Chyavanprashad with "non-diabetic traditional Chyawanprash."

On the other side, Emami asserted that the plaintiff's product was in no way tarnished, dismissed or slandered by the advertisements. It stated that the advertisements were designed solely to inform the general public about a sugar-free Chyavanprashad being available. It was argued that the advertisement showed nowhere that sugar consumption was bad for health, and it offered only an alternative to consumers, who would like to take advantage of Chyawanprash's advantages without sugar. The Court, after analyzing the advertisements, observed that it was "obviously discerned" that the product of Dabur was not the topic of the comparison, and the comparison was actually with Chyawanprash as a generic product.

It also noted the claim of Dabur that Chyawanprash had been shown to be bad or unhealthy was misconceived, thus disregarding its reputation. The Court found, in light of the above, that there was no reason to restrict Emami from publishing the advertisements. The Court also ruled that, by the manner of an affidavit submitted in the matter, Emami would be bound by the changes to the advertisements suggested by itself.

Lawyers Hemant Singh, Manish Kumar Mishra and Akansha Singh represented Dabur. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Roohina Dua, Anirudh Bakhru, and Chaitanya Madan represented Emami.

Section Editor: Sandeep G | 08 Jul 2019 18:41pm IST


Tags : #Legal

Latest News

























5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice

5thvoice


Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.