Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-23-2013
..... 741. see also the case of heinz india versus glaxo smithkline reported in 2009 (2) chn 479).this is a kind of comparative advertisement conceptualised in section 30 of the trade marks act, 1999. but the provision warns that such depiction shall not, inter alia, be unfair or detrimental to the repute . of ..... private ltd.reported in 2009 (40 ptc 65.(mad) aired the view that consumers had the right to know and to receive information and that corresponding rights had to be matched and balanced .the right to commercial speech ., in my opinion, gives a right to a trader to advertise his ..... being referred to was vim . this is because vim has about 2/3rd share of the market and admittedly other dishwash available are quite insignificant compared to vim . undisputedly, the law relating to innuendo in defamation, applies to cases of disparagement of goods. therefore, the above special circumstance is ..... hence a trader, without reference to the goods of any other trader can extol the qualities of his product. a trader is permitted to compare his goods with those of another trader. he can make this comparison by highlighting the qualities and efficaciousness of his goods without stating or commenting ..... reputation as provided in section 29 (8) of the trade mark act, 1999 read with section 30 of the act. of the more reason why dettol should not be compared with lifebuoy because it is a drug under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940. the advertisement tends to misbrand dettol under section 17 by the false .....Tag this Judgment!