Delhi HC restrains Puro Healthy Salt from publishing disparaging commercials against Tata Salt

The Delhi High Court has restrained the manufacturers of Puro Healthy Salt from televising or publishing any commercials or promotional material in print or electronic form that would result in disparagement of Tata Salt..The interim order was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Prathiba M Singh in a suit filed by the manufacturer of Tata Salt, Tata Chemicals Ltd..Tata had sought a perpetual injunction, rendition of accounts, and damages against Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd for running a consistent campaign to malign its product through ‘false propaganda’..Tata submitted that Puro Healthy Salt had released three television commercials, an interview of its promoter, and issuance of a flyer/pamphlet containing objectionable content against Tata Salt and other brands..It was alleged that these advertising material made false, baseless and reckless statements against Tata’s product. Further, the message that Tata Salt was harmful for health and not fit for human consumption was disparaging and malicious, it was argued..Tata thus claimed that the advertising was not merely puffery, but was false and slanderous..Puro, on the other hand, challenged the maintainability of the suit..It was argued that since at least three proceedings were pending in respect of the same subject matter, the present suit ought to be dismissed for ‘forum shopping’ and lack of territorial jurisdiction..The three pending proceedings are a case in the Bombay High Court arising out of the Advertising Standards Council of India’s complaint by Tata, proceedings before the City Civil Court in Ahmedabad arising out of a suit by Indian Salt Manufacturers Association, and a matter before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge in Gandhidham in a suit filed by an individual..Puro defended its advertisement campaign on the ground that the manner, intent, story-line and message conveyed were true and correct..Rejecting the objection with respect to forum shopping, the Court observed that the protection of rights and brand equity in the Tata brand was not the subject matter of any of the earlier proceedings..“The present suit is based on various distinct and different causes of action including disparagement and denigration of TATA salt, specifically its brand equity, dilution of the goodwill in the product, disparagement and slander… In view of the sustained, deliberate, and systematic expansion by the Defendant of its advertising from the three impugned commercials to the impugned video, impugned pamphlet, impugned booklet containing various allegations against Plaintiff‟s product i.e. TATA salt, it cannot be held that the present suit is not maintainable before this Court on the ground of forum shopping“, it observed..It further held that since the television commercials and other material was circulated in Delhi itself, the plea of lack of territorial jurisdiction would also not sustain..While assessing the television commercials of Puro Healthy Salt, the Court observed that they made wide and generalized statements against white salts, one of which is Tata Salt. The message being conveyed was that white salt was made in chemical factories, it was bleached, and it should be gotten rid of as it is dangerous for the health of the family..The Court stated that the purpose behind the advertisement campaign was “to clearly convince customers that white salt is dangerous for health“, by making references and allusions to Tata Salt..“In the video, the TATA Salt packaging is clearly visible. In the pamphlets and in the booklet, the TATA Salt packaging is blurred, but there is no doubt that the packaging is clearly discernible. TATA Salt is a product which has been sold for several decades and this is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken.”.The Court further concluded that comparing white salt with poison was meant to create panic amongst the public. This would have “deleterious impact not just on the Plaintiff and its product, but also on customers“..Further holding that it is not permissible for any company to indulge in advertising for its product which would lead to panic amongst consumers, the Court stated that the two brands are not comparable products, as one is iodised salt which is sold as per the FSSAI Regulations, and the other is rock salt..The hand waving gesture of “bye-bye” in the first three commercials is an allusion to ‘tata’ and cannot be said to be “wholly innocent”, it was further observed..Thus relying on the settled position of law that the use of a trademark is permissible in comparative advertising, so long as such use is not detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark, the Court restrained Puro Healthy from televising or publishing any commercials or any other advertising or promotional material in print or electronic form which would result in disparagement or denigration of Tata Salt..“The swathe of population which has consumed and continues to consume a product such as TATA salt cannot be led to believe that they were consuming poison or a dangerous ingredient, without there being irrebuttable proof for the same. Upholding the Defendant‟s right to make such statements would mean that the regulatory authorities have turned a blind eye to poison being sold, which is also clearly unacceptable. The truth, if any, of the Defendant‟s statements has to be established in trial. Until then, the Defendant cannot be permitted to make such denigratory and disparaging remarks.”.Tata was represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal with Advocates Siddharth Sharma, Bani Dikshit and Anshula Laroiya..Puro Health Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Darpan Wadhwa with Advocates Vikas Mehta, Cauveri Birbal, Manjira and Vasanth..Read the order:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.