CASE LIST

  • Imperial Tobacco Co. v. Albert Bonnan; AIR 1928 CAC 1
  • Lakhanpal National Limited v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors.; (1989) 3 SCC 251
  • Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 139
    • “commercial speech” is a part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
  • Reckitt and Colman of India v. Kiwi TTK Ltd.;1996 (16) PTC 393
  • Hindustan Lever v. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd.; AIR 1998 SC 526
  • Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.; 1999 1 PTC 741
  • Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Jyothi Laboratories Ltd. and Ors.; 1999 2 CALLT 230 (HC)
  • Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1
    • A distinction would always have to be made and latitude given for an advertisement to gain a purchaser or two. This latitude cannot and does not mean any permission for misrepresentation but only a description of permissible assertion.
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Naga Limited; 2003 3 AD (Del) 641
  • Pepsi Co., Inc. and Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Anr.; 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del)
  • Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Limited; 112 (2004) DLT 73; 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del.)
  • Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., AIR 2005 Del. 102
  • Mother Diary Foods & Processing Ltd. v. Zee Telefilms Ltd.; 2005 (30) PTC (Del.).
  • Karamchand Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. Shri Adhikari Brothers; 2005 (31) PTC 1 (Del)
  • Dabur India Ltd. v. Wipro Ltd.; 2006 (32) PTC 677 (Del)
  • Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd.; 128 (2006) DLT 81
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Cavinkare Pvt. Ltd., ILR (2007) Delhi 368
  • Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd.; 2007 (35) PTC 556 (Karn)
  • Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.; 2009 (40) PTC 653 (Mad.)
  • Dabur India Ltd. vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: 167 (2010) DLT 278 (DB); 2010 (42) PTC 88 [Del]
    1. An advertisement is commercial speech and is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
    2. An advertisement must not be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive.
    3. Of course, there would be some grey areas but these need not
      necessarily be taken as serious representations of fact but only as glorifying one’s product.
    4. While glorifying its product, an advertiser may not denigrate or disparage a rival product.
  • S.C. Johnson¬† and Son, Inc. and Ors. v. Buchanan Group Pty. Ltd. and Ors.; 2010 (42) PTC 77 (Del)
  • Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Akash Gupta; 2010 (42) PTC 294
  • Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser(India) Ltd.; 2010 (43) PTC 460 (DB)
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Cavincare Private Limited; 2010 (44) PTC 270 (Del)
  • Godrej COnsumer Products Ltd. v. Initiative Media Advertising and Anr.; 2012 (52) PTC 260 (Bom.)
  • Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd.; 2013 (54) PTC 515 (Del)
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; 2013 (55) PTC 126 (Del) [Products: Dettol and Lifebuoy]
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; 2014 (3) CHN (CAL) 527
  • Colgate Palmolive Company and Anr. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; 2014 (57) PTC 47 (Del)
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited; 2014 (57) PTC 78 (Cal)
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited; 2014 (57) PTC 495 (Del) (DB)
  • GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. v. Havells India Ltd.; 2014 (59) PTC 628 (Del)
  • Havells India Ltd. v. Amritanshu Khaitan; 2015 (62) PTC 64 (Del)
  • Philips India Ltd. v. Shree Sant Kripa Appliances Pvt. Ltd.; 2015 (62) PTC 242 (Del)
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Gillette India Ltd.; 2016 (68) PTC 67 (Del))
  • Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation LTd. & Ors.; (2017) 71 PTC 396 (Bom)
  • Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Limited; 2019 (79) PTC 299 (Del)
  • Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd. v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.; 2019 (80) PTC 525 (Del)
  • Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; 2020 (82) PTC 329 (Del)