IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v. Dabur India Ltd.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Order VI Rule 17, CPC; disparagement
Brief facts
In Colgate's 2019 disparagement suit against Dabur, Colgate applied to amend the plaint to challenge further advertisements.
Issues before the Court
Whether the amendment was necessary to bring the new advertisements within the suit.
Court's findings
The challenge in the proposed amendment already found a basis in paragraphs 21 to 33 and prayer 63(v) of the original plaint; adjudication of the issue of ingredient disparagement would cover the new advertisements, so the amendment was unnecessary (para 28).
Decision
Amendment declined as unnecessary; plaintiffs cautioned to proceed with trial failing which the suit is liable to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Key legal principle / ratio
An amendment is unnecessary where the existing pleadings and prayers already cover the further acts complained of.
Important paragraph references
Paras 28-30. Procedural order.
Important: This case note is a research summary only. It must be verified against the full judgment by a qualified lawyer, advocate or patent/trade mark attorney before any reliance. Do not rely on it as legal advice; Ragulika IP accepts no responsibility for its accuracy or for any action taken on it.
Keywords
Amendment of Plaint Comparative Advertising Disparagement Trial Delay
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors. v. Ferrero S.p.A. & Ors.
Seized infringing articles bearing an imitation of a protected trade dress should be destroyed rather than released for other use.
AppealCounterfeit GoodsDestruction of Seized GoodsJar ShapeTrade MarksAcqua Minerals Limited v. Pramod Borse & Anr.
Registration of a domain name identical or deceptively similar to another's well-known trade mark, by a person having no legitimate connection with that mark and who seeks to profit from its transfer, amounts to bad faith cybersqu…
Bad Faith AdoptionCybersquattingDomain NamesPassing OffTrade MarksADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking Order