- SC IP
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.
The Delhi High Court, recently, refused to grant interim injunction to restrain a television commercial (“TVC”) aired by Dabur India Ltd. for lack of a direct reference to the product of the plaintiff, Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. The TVC in question featured one of the losing participants in a race being recommended to have Dabur’s GLUCOPLUS-C orange flavoured glucose powder drink, which contains 25% more glucose and micronutrients than that contained in other glucose powders.
It was the plaintiff’s case that, since it is the market leader in the orange glucose powder drink category under its GLUCON-D TANGY ORANGE brand, it was directly impacted by the TVC which misrepresents the nutritional value in Dabur’s product under the garb of puffery.
The court, after considering the arguments advanced, reiterated the importance of factors such as intent, manner, storyline, direct comparison, and message of the TVC while examining any element of disparagement by comparative advertisement. It further noted that a case for generic disparagement is made out only when the depiction refers to the aggrieved party’s product or the entire product category. The court ruled out the presumption that Dabur’s comparison of its product with generic products will have any reference to Zydus’ product by ordinary consumers merely because it is the market leader in orange drinks. Accordingly, it refused to grant interim relief to Zydus.
Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd. [CS (COMM) 304/2022], Judgment dated December 22, 2022.