IP Case Law › Trade Marks › Pepsi Co., Inc. & Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. & Anr.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Provisions considered: Comparative advertising; disparagement; trade mark
Brief facts
Pepsi objected to television commercials for Coca-Cola's THUMS UP that allegedly ridiculed PEPSI and its trade mark, including a 'roller coaster' commercial. Interim relief was sought and the matter came before a Division Bench in appeal.
Issues before the Court
Whether the commercials amounted to disparagement of the appellants' product and trade mark warranting an interim injunction.
Court's findings
Taking a prima facie view of the commercials, the Bench held that certain of them disparaged the appellants' product beyond permissible comparative advertising and puffery, having regard to the manner, intent and overall message of the advertisements.
Decision
Appeal partly allowed; the respondent restrained from showing the commercials annexed to the plaint as Annexures A to D and the roller-coaster commercial in its present form; observations prima facie only.
Key legal principle / ratio
A trader may puff its own goods and compare them with a rival's, but may not denigrate or ridicule a competitor's product or mark; disparagement is judged from the intent, manner of presentation, storyline and overall message of the advertisement.
Important paragraph references
Concluding paragraph: operative restraint.
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
Comparative Advertising Disparagement Interim Injunction Television Commercials Trade Mark
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