'Can't Permit Senior Counsels To Take Lion's Share Of Court's Time': Delhi HC Asks Lawyers To Keep Time Constraints In Mind While Arguing

"Just because senior counsels appear on either side – who are ready to fight till the last, they cannot take away Lion's share of the Court's time," said the Delhi High Court while expressing its unhappiness over lawyers' insistence on arguing the matter "till the Court agrees with their stand."

Stating that such a conduct cannot be permitted, Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh said:

"We implore the members of the Bar, particularly the Senior Counsels to keep the constraints of time of the court in mind and to cooperate with the Court with a greater sense of responsibility."

It added,

"Counsels should realise that the first date when the matter is listed, is the date for preliminary hearing, and the Court proceeds on a prima facie view of the matter. It is not a date for adjudication of the appeal on merits of the matter. We all have to be mindful of the fact that a large number of other matters are listed on the day when the appeal is listed for preliminary hearing."

The Court was hearing an appeal against a part of the single judge order which had restrained Hindustan Unilever Limited from publishing four advertisements pertaining to its toilet cleaner product 'DOMEX' on any forum. A direction was issued to remove all references to the product HARPIC or the bottle in question, which was held to be deceptively similar to Reckitt Benckiser's registered mark.

HUL had then approached the division bench seeking a stay of the said impugned order.

Noting that the hearing had gone on for about 1 hour and 30 minutes on both sides, the Court made the following observation before passing the order:

"….. we wish to observe that particularly in matters relating to Intellectual Property Rights, our experience has been that the matters are very vociferously contested and on the first date when the appeal is listed, in case the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order (which invariably is under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC), the learned counsel for the appellant (HUL) who invariably is a senior counsel, presses for arguing the matter till the Court agrees with him or her."

"Similarly, when the Court is inclined to stay the operation of the impugned order or any part of it, counsel for the respondent would like to argue the matter till the cows come home. This cannot be permitted."

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing on both the sides, the Court was of the prima facie view that the Single Judge could not have picked up only the bottle shape depicted in the advertisements of the appellant (HUL) and compared the same with the bottle shape depicted in the device registration obtained by the respondent which was engaged in the manufacturing of toilet cleaner 'HARPIC'.

"Merely because their market share may be less, some of these products come from well-known consumer goods players such as Dabur & Emami. The submission that the bottle shape is functional, prima facie, appears to be correct, looking to the similar shape of all the other bottles used in the trade," the Court added.

The Court also said that merely because the respondent appeared to be the dominant market player, it cannot be assumed that the bottle depicted in the advertisements, namely the second, fourth and fifth advertisements, only relate to its product.

"Considering the fact that there was no injunction operating in respect of second, fourth and fifth advertisements since the filing of the suit till passing of the impugned order, we are inclined to stay the operation of the impugned order insofar, as, it relates to second, fourth and fifth advertisement," the Court ordered.

However, the Court said that it was not inclined to stay the injunction granted in favour of the respondent qua third advertisement.

The matter will now be listed on March 16, 2022.

About Single Judge Order

A single judge bench of Justice Jayant Nath had observed that an advertiser has to be given enough room to play in the advertisement and that the plaintiff ought not be hypersensitive towards the same.

He was dealing with an application seeking interim injunction filed by the company involved in the manufacturing of the toilet cleaner under the trademark 'HARPIC' since 2001 against the defendants which was engaged in the manufacturing of toilet cleaner 'DOMEX'.

It was the case of the plaintiff that the advertisement of defendant concerning DOMEX product was allegedly made in order to vilify, denigrate and defame HARPIC toilet cleaner.

It was also stated that five advertisements were launched by the defendant which allegedly claimed HARPIC to be ineffective and useless for toilet cleaning. According to the plaintiff, the impugned advertisement ridiculed HARPIC consumers and prompted them to immediately shift their preferences to DOMEX. 

Accordingly, the plaintiff had sought an injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing, broadcasting or putting in public domain the five advertisements i.e. TVC, Social Media and Print Advertisement.

Case Title: HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED v. RECKITT BENCKISER (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED

Click Here To Read Order