Delhi High Court Refuses To Injunct TV Commercial Of Puro Pink Salt In Tata’s Commercial Disparagement Suit

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to injunct circulation of a TV commercial aired by Puro about its pink color rock salt in a suit filed by Tata alleging commercial disparagement of its white salt.

While dismissing Tata’s interim application in the suit, Justice C Hari Shankar said that Tata failed to make out any prima facie case justifying interference with continued broadcasting of the commercial.

“Tata also stands disentitled to any injunctive interlocutory relief as, on merits, the case is squarely covered against Tata by the judgment of the Division Bench in Puro-I, as also because the plaint completely suppresses the fact that the very assertions, in the impugned Puro commercial, which Tata finds disparaging of white salt, have been used by Tata itself in selling its Himalayan Pink Salt, to tout it as a “healthy alternative” to white salt,” the court said.

Justice Shankar said that the commercial is well within the boundaries of what is permissible in comparative advertising.

“If a commercial as innocuous as this is to be injuncted, one may as well completely do away with the concept of comparative advertising altogether. It is difficult to envisage comparative advertising being undertaken in a manner which is more innocuous than what Puro has done,” the court said.

It added that at the highest, it could be said that the preference for Puro’s salt, even when white salt was available, was because Puro’s salt was healthy. The court observed that it is highly debatable as to whether this can result in an inference that white salt is unhealthy.

“What Tata is doing is inferring, from the positive assertions in the impugned commercial, negative inferences regarding Tata’s salt. There is prima facie substance in Mr. Sibal’s contention that these inferences would require a leap of imagination, which an ordinary consumer would not undertake. At a prima facie stage at least, it is difficult for me to hold that all the positive assertions made with respect to Puro’s Healthy Salt, in the impugned commercial, would inevitably result in a consumer reading, into those assertions, negative aspersions regarding Tata White Salt,” the court said.

Furthermore, the court said that if Tata can sell its Himalayan Pink Salt by advertising it as natural, free of chemicals and additives as a healthy alternative to common salt, there is no reason why Puro cannot do so.

“At the very least, having used the same expressions to sell its own products, vis-à-vis white salt, Tata cannot, at least at this interlocutory stage, seek any injunction against Puro using the very same expressions for its own Puro Healthy Salt, vis-à-vis white salt. For both these reasons, therefore, Tata is additionally disentitled to interim relief in the present matter,” the court said.

It was also observed that Puro’s right to advertise and sell its product as Puro Healthy Salt cannot be disputed, so long as there is no challenge to the registration of the mark “Puro Healthy Salt” in its favour.

“No such misrepresentation of fact, qua Puro Healthy Salt, is alleged to have been made in the present case. Tata does not allege that any of the representations made, in the impugned commercial, with respect to Puro Healthy Salt, is incorrect,” the court said.

Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Achuthan Sreekumar, Mr. Zafeer Ahmed, Mr. Rohit Bansal and Ms. Apoorva Prasad appeared for Tata.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, with Team from Khaitan &Co.; Partners, Nishad Nadkarni & Ankur Sangal and Associates, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Raghu Vinayak Sinha, Jaanvi Chopra and Shaurya Pandey appeared for Puro.

Title: TATA SONS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. v. PURO WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 942

Click Here To Read Order