Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur From Circulating WhatsApp Advertisement On ‘Amla Hair Oil’, Refuses Interim Injunction Against Print Ad

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained Indian multinational consumer goods company Dabur from circulating its WhatsApp advertisement on “Dabur Amla Hair Oil” featuring bollywood actor Deepika Padukone.

Justice Navin Chawla passed the order in a suit filed by Marico Limited alleging disparagement of the goodwill and reputation of its product “Nihar Natural Shanti Badam Amla Hair Oil” and registered “Nihar” trade marks.

Marico sought an ad interim injunction to restrain Dabur from circulating or forwarding its WhatsAp Advertisement or Print Advertisement on Amla hair oil.

“In view of the above, I find that while the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case against the Print Advertisement. At the same time, the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case as far as the WhatsApp message/Advertisement is concerned,” the court said.

Regarding the print advertisement, it was Marico’s case that the opening statement “Yaad Rakhna, Sasta Aawla, balo ko mehenga padega” used by Dabur was alarming and threatening the consumers against all other cheaper in price Amla Hair Oils as being inferior and harmful. It was submitted that this amounted to generic disparagement.

While refusing to injunct the print advertisement on the hair oil, the court restrained Dabur or any other person working under it from circulating the WhatsApp message or Advertisement on Amla hair oil, during the pendency of the Marico’s suit.

Observing that there was no apparent reference of Marico in the impugned Print Advertisement, the court said:

“The reference to the plaintiff, if any, can be drawn only by a leap of imagination, which in my prima facie opinion is not warranted. It is merely suggestive of the fact that there could be severe repercussions in using cheaper Amla Hair Oils-cheaper being in quality and price. The leap of imagination that the plaintiff wants this Court to take is too wide.”

Justice Chawla also said that an advertisement is to be judged from point of view of an ordinary consumer and his perception of the advertisement, which would be to see the advertisement as a puffery, rather than from a sensitive competitor like Marcio.

“In my opinion, the advertisement merely suggests that buying Amla Hair Oil, which is cheaper in price or quality, might be harmful to the hair. This can be stated to be an opinion but not defamatory of all hair oils that are cheaper in price to that of the plaintiff,” the court said.

On the circulation of impugned WhatsApp advertisement, the court said: “Though the WhatsApp message/Advertisement shows that the impugned Print Advertisement is aimed at the plaintiff, however, the ordinary consumer would not have the benefit of having the WhatsApp Advertisement/message along with the Print Advertisement before him/her. It would only be the persons who receive the WhatsApp Advertisement/message along with the Print Advertisement, who would be able to make the connection between the two.”

Title: MARICO LIMITED v. DABUR INDIA LIMITED

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 496

Click Here To Read Here