Dabur India Gets Green Signal For Ad Campaign, Emami's Plea Dismissed

Dabur India Gets Green Signal For Ad Campaign, Emami's Plea Dismissed

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court dismissed Emami Limited's appeal against Dabur India Limited, alleging that Dabur's advertisement for its Cool King talcum powder disparaged Emami's products, Dermi Cool and Navratna. The court upheld a modified injunction passed by a single judge, ruling that the ad did not denigrate Emami's products or mislead consumers.

Factual Background

Dabur India Limited aired a television commercial for its Cool King talcum powder featuring Bollywood actor Ranbir Kapoor. The ad showed a character rejecting a bottle labeled "Sadharan" (ordinary) and opting for Dabur's Cool King. Initially, the ad featured a white bottle with a green cap allegedly resembling Emami's registered design for Dermi Cool. However, Dabur later modified the advertisement, replacing the contested bottle with a generic white cylindrical container with a black cap.

Procedural Background

Emami Limited filed a suit in July 2024 seeking an injunction against Dabur India Limited. An ad-interim injunction was granted on July 11, 2024, restraining Dabur from airing the commercial using bottles resembling Emami's products. The single judge later modified the injunction in January 2025, allowing the revised ad to air.

Issues Involved

1. Disparagement: Whether Dabur's advertisement disparaged Emami's products, Dermi Cool and Navratna.

2. Trademark Infringement: Whether Dabur's advertisement infringed Emami's trademark rights.

3. Commercial Speech: Whether Dabur's advertisement was a permissible comparison between its own product and "ordinary" talcum powders.

Contentions of the Parties

Emami's Contentions: Emami argued that the use of the word "Sadharan" in the ad conveyed a disparaging message to consumers and undermined its brand reputation.

Dabur's Contentions: Dabur countered that Emami had no design registration for the complete Dermi Cool bottle and had misrepresented its intellectual property claims.

Reasoning & Analysis

The Division Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar found that Emami's claims were exaggerated and unsupported by the facts. The court held that:

• Modified Bottle: The modified bottle shown in Dabur's ad was "entirely different" from Emami's Dermi Cool packaging.
• Term "Sadharan": The term "Sadharan" was used in a generic, non-derogatory sense and did not amount to denigration.
• No Double Recall: There was no "double recall" by consumers linking the earlier version of the ad to Emami's products after six months of non-broadcast.

Final Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Emami's appeal, upholding the modified injunction passed by the single judge. The court ruled that Dabur's advertisement did not disparage Emami's products or mislead consumers.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Ms. Mini Agarwal and Ms. Ratnadipa Sarkar, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Mr. R. Jawaharlal, Ms. Megha Kumar and Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Advocates.