Bombay High Court grants interim relief to CEAT against Apollo Tyres' ad

The Bombay High Court recently granted interim relief to tyre company CEAT Ltd. in a lawsuit against Apollo Tyres after the former alleged that Apollo's ad on APTERRA AT2 unfairly disparaged Ceat's product CROSSDRIVE AT tyres [Ceat Ltd. v. Apollo Tyres Ltd.].

While granting the interim relief, single-judge Justice RI Chagla observed that the ad’s main purpose was to “denigrate and slander” CEAT’s tyres and it could lead to “irreparable harm” for the company.

As part of the interim relief, the Court ordered Apollo to immediately stop sharing, broadcasting or promoting the ad on any platform.

The company was also prohibited from making any statements that could disparage CEAT’s products and was directed to remove the advertisement from all websites.

Apollo was also prohibited from violating CEAT’s trademark by using the words “SETH” and “SEE-IT” as used in the disputed advertisement. This includes any visual representations, spoken uses of those words, or any other similar terms that could be confused with CEAT’s registered trademark.

The case will be heard next on October 11.

CEAT first spotted the advertisement on September 4 when it was uploaded on YouTube. The ad featured two Mahindra THAR SUVs: a worn-out black one representing CEAT’s CROSSDRIVE AT tyres and a new maroon one showcasing Apollo’s APTERRA AT2 tyres.

In the ad, the black SUV laments its poor condition, stating, “Meri halat dekh ke lagta hai?” and highlighting its inadequate grip with “SEE-IT, SEE-IT!… road ne toh ghis di yaar… meri grip.”

The maroon SUV mocks the black one, asking, “Par tum toh all-terrain tyre ho na?” and encourages it to “Just Go The Distance.”

This dialogue portrays the black SUV and by extension, CEAT’s tyres, in a negative light compared to Apollo’s new tyres.

This according to CEAT unfairly depicted its CROSSDRIVE AT tyre as worn out while deliberately blurring the CEAT logo. The advertisement implied that CEAT’s tyres were of inferior quality.

During the hearing, CEAT's lawyer, Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar along with advocate Hiren Kamod argued that the ad misled the public and that the disclaimer was barely visible and ineffective. He contended that the overall message painted CEAT’s tyre negatively when compared to Apollo’s.

The Court agreed with this contention.

“The depiction of the Plaintiff’s tyre in the impugned VC advertisement and the use of the words ‘SEE-IT, SEE-IT’ and ‘SETH’ (phonetically similar to CEAT) is not a mere coincidence… the intention of the Defendant is to create a bias in the mind of the viewers,” the judge said.

The court deemed the disclaimer insufficient due to its low visibility and hence, found the case fit for interim relief

Senior Advocate Virag Tulzapurkar with Advocates Hiren Kamod, Vinod Bhagat Prachi Shah and VA Bhagat appeared for CEAT.

[Read Order]