In Eureka Forbes Limited v. Kent Ro Systems, Eureka Forbes Ltd. (Plaintiff) alleged that an advertisement launched by Kent RO Systems (Defendant) disparaged their product.

Both the parties involved have been in the business of manufacture and sale of water purifiers and have established, a considerable customer base over time. The Plaintiff contended that they have been in the business since the year 1982 and have achieved a majority of 70% share in the Indian market. They provided that they have been the first to introduce and market UV and RO based water purifiers and have, since , been the highest sellers of such systems. They further contended that they have invested huge amounts in their advertisement campaigns, which involved educating the masses about the kind of water purifier most suited for use, according to their geographical location. The plaintiff stated that the purifier requirements changes with location, and the use of an unsuitable kind may in the long run be harmful to the health of the user.

It was therefore the case of the Plaintiff that when the Defendant provides an advertisement on the lines that discredit the utility of a UV and RO water purifying system it hurts the market share of the Plaintiff, who claim to have become synonymous with the RO and UV technology. They argued that the advertisement had been directed solely towards them and in that process had injured their image, and therefore the said advertisement should be taken off air and the court should pass an interim injunction to that effect.

The Defendants, on their part, contended that the advertisement was not seeded with any mala fide intention and was in fact issued only to promote its own machines and to inform the public of the benefit of its products. It was a further contention of the Defendant that the Plaintiff had failed to disclose the fact that they are not the inventors of the said technologies viz. RO, UV, UF, NF, etc and that these technologies have been in existence for more than 30 years and have therefore been available for use by all those who are in the business of manufacturing water purification machines. This further meant, that the contention of the Plaintiff that the technology is directly and solely associated with them is a misstatement, and, if accepted would amount to accepting it's monopoly over a technology of which it is not the inventor.

The High Court of Delhi, while considering the arguments provided by both the parties stated that four considerations crop up in the present case:

  1. Whether the impugned advertisement makes a reference to the Plaintiff's water purification machine overtly or covertly? The court in answering this stated that the Plaintiff's claim of being synonymous with UV or RO technology could not be more inaccurate. The Court observed that UV rays and RO technology are very commonly used by companies involved in water purification.
  2. Does the impugned advertisement disparage the Plaintiff's product, if the answer to the aforementioned question is in the affirmative? Since the impugned advertisement was found not to have made either a direct or indirect reference to the Plaintiff's product, it, therefore, in no manner caused any disparagement to the Plaintiff's product.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction in the event of the above questions being answered in the affirmative? The court observed that the judgments cited by the Plaintiff were not applicable in the present case. The court stated that although Dabur India Ltd. Vs. Emami Ltd, was good in principle it could be distinguished from the present case on facts. Similar was the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. The Court thus disagreed with the Plaintiff's views.

The Court, therefore, while modifying it previous order, directed the Defendant to make suitable amendments in the impugned advertisement to highlight the other attributes of the water purification machines shown under the caption UV and RO in the impugned advertisement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.