{"id":174791,"date":"1997-12-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-12-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997"},"modified":"2018-10-15T00:28:30","modified_gmt":"2018-10-14T18:58:30","slug":"hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","title":{"rendered":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C. Sen, M. Jagannadha Rao.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nHINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD. & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t17\/12\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C. SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO.\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
\t       THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997
\nPresent:\n<\/p>\n
\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice Suhas C.Sen
\n\t       Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.Jagannadha Rao
\nHarish\tN.Salve,   Sr.Adv.,  Rajesh  Malhotra,\tDalip  Kumar
\nMalhotra, Advs. with him for the appellant
\nSoli J.Sorabjee,  Iqbal\t Chaqla,  Kirit\t Rawal,\t Sr.  Advs.,
\nR.Karanjawala,\tS.Ganesh,   Ms,\t Ruby\tAhuja,\t .   Arunabh
\nChawdhury, and\tMs. Manik  Karanjawala, Advs.  with them for
\nthe Respondents,
\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T
\n     The following  Judgment of\t the  Court  was  delivered:
\nM. JAGANNADHA RAO,:.\n<\/p>\n
     Hindustan Lever  Ltd. has filed this Civil Appeal under
\nSection 55  of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practice
\nAct. 1969  thereinafter called the Act) against the order of
\nthe Monopolies\t&  Restrictive\tTrade  Practices  Commission
\nthereinafter called  the Commission). The order is dated 576
\nNovember, 1997\tand is\tpassed in Injunction Application No.
\n336 of 1997 filed in the Main Case No. 405 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
     The two  respondents are colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd.
\nand Miss  Pallavi S.  Desai. The  said respondents  were the
\ncomplainants 1\tand 2 respectively in the main case No. 4054
\nof 1997\t which is  pending before the Commission . By virtue
\nof the\timpugned order,\t certain directions in the nature of
\ntemporary injunction  have been\t granted in  favour  of\t the
\nrespondents complainants and against the appellant. It is to
\nbe noted  further that\tthe Commission.,  which\t directed  a
\npanel of  experts to  give  it\t  its  onion  on  the  issue
\ninvolved, made\tit clear  that\tthe  order  that  was  being
\npassed was a “temporary interim order “be  and a final order
\non the\tinjunction Application\twould be  passed later after
\nreceiving the opinion at the experts. The Commission said:\n<\/p>\n
     ” If the parties are agreeable, the
\n     order  passed  at\tpresent\t may  be
\n     treated  as   a  purely   temporary
\n     interim\torder\t  subject     to
\n     modification, variation or vacation
\n     after perusing  the opinion  of the
\n     aforesaid panel of experts”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We shall  state the  brief facts and the conclusions pf
\nthe Commission\tin so  far as  they  are  material  for\t the
\npurposes of this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
     The first\trespondent, Colgate-Palmolive  (India)\tLtd.
\nmanufactures Colgate  Dental Cream.  The appellant  too\t has
\nvarious brands of tooth paste but we are concerned here with
\nthe New\t Pepsodent’ toothpaste\tintroduced by  the appellant
\nrecently  into\t the  market.\tThe  appellant\t had   given
\nadvertisement in  the print,  visual,  and  boarding  media,
\nclaiming that  its toothpaste  “new Pepsodent”\twas  “102  %
\nbetter\tthan  the  leading  toothpaste”.  The  advertisement
\ncontains a  “schematic’ picture\t supposedly  of\t samples  of
\nsaliva\t  It  depicts on  one side  of the  advertisement  a
\npictorial   representation of  the germs  in a\tsample taken
\nfrom the  mouth of  a person  hours after brushing with “the
\nleading toothpaste.” And another pictorial representation is
\nor the\tgerms from  a similar sample taken from the mouth of
\nanother person\tusing the  “New Pepsodent”. The former shows
\nlarge number  of germs\tremaining in  the sample  of  salive
\nwhere the  leading toothpaste  is used\tand the latter shows
\nalmost neglible\t quantity of  germs in\tthe sample of salive
\nwhere New  Pepsodent’ is used. The advertisement also speaks
\nof tests  conducted at\tthe Hindustan L ever Dental Research
\nCentre and  says that  the appellant’s product is based on a
\nGerm check  formula which  is twice as effective on germs as
\nthe leading toothpaste and that it was, in fact, 102% better
\nin fighting germs. In the TV advertisement of the appellant,
\ntwo boys  are asked  the name  of the  toothpaste with which
\nthey  had   brushed  their   teeth  in\t the  morning.\t The
\nadvertisement shows Pepsodent 102% superior in killing germs
\nwhich is  being used  by one  of the by. So far as the other
\nboy is\tconcerned, who\tis using another toothpaste which is
\ninferior in  killing germs,  the lip  movements according to
\nthe respondents, indicated that the boy was using “Colgate ”
\nthough the voice is muted. Additionally, when this muting is
\ndone there  is a  sound of the same jingle as is used in the
\nusual Colgate-\tadvertisement,\tleaving,  according  to\t the
\ncomplainants,. doubts  in the  minds  of  the  viewers\tthat
\n“pepsodent” was being compared with Colgate.\n<\/p>\n
     On these and other allegations, the complaint was filed
\nby  the\t respondents  before  the  Commission  relying\tupon
\nSections 10,  36A and  36B of the Act and in particular upon
\nSection 36A  (viii) and (x) of the Act. The respondents also
\nfiled  an  Injunction  Application  336\/1997  for  grant  of
\ntemporary Injunction  under Section  12A if  the Act, It was
\ncontended that\tthe appellant  was guilty  of  unfair  trade
\npractice under\tSection 36A  in as  much  as  the  appellant
\nallegedly adopted,  for the  purpose of promotion sales, use
\nor supply  of its  goods,  an  unfair  method  or  deceptive
\npractice by making a representation as stated in Section 36A\n<\/p>\n
(viii) and  giving false  or misleading\t facts “disparaging”
\nthe goods of the appellant as stated in Section 36A m(x).\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant,  while defending  itself, contended that
\nthere was  no unfair  trade practice  practiced by  it under
\nclause (viii)  or (x)  of Section  36A and  that no case for
\ngrant of  temporary Injunction\tunder Section  12A  was made
\nout. The  appellant contended  that  the  complainants\twere
\nbound to  prove that the facts depicted in the advertisement
\nas to 102% superiority of Pepsodent were false. Unless\tsuch
\nfalsity was proved in the     I.A. no  temporary  injunction
\ncould be granted.\n<\/p>\n
     The Commission  in its  order dated  9th\/6th  November.
\n1997 after referring to the facts and contentions, held that
\nthe  injection\t based\ton   Sections  36B   and  10  as  to
\nmaintainability of the complaint was not tenable because the
\nCommission was empowered, even to act upon its own knowledge
\nor  information\t for  purpose  of  inquiry  under  the\tAct.
\nFurther, the 2nd complainant, who was a consumer, could rely
\nupon Sections  10 and  36B. It\tfound that  inasmuch as\t the
\noverall market\tshare of Colgate was shown to be 59 % in the
\nsecond quarter of the year 1997 and the appellants share was
\n27 %  , the  reference in  the advertisement  to a ‘leading’
\ntoothpaste must\t be taken  to be  a reference  to   ‘Colgate
\ndental cream  of the  1st  complainant\tand  this  was\talso
\nobvious from  the use  of the  word ‘the  ‘ before  the word
\n‘leading; in  the TV  and newspaper  advertisements. The  TV
\nadvertisement with  the Two  boys shown alongwith the jingle
\nwas  sufficient\t  to  identify\tthe  leading  toothpaste  as
\nColgate, according to the Commission.\n<\/p>\n
     As to  the ‘anti-bacterial’ superiority, the Commission
\nstated that  the inference  was that  the appellant  was not
\nmerely treating\t its toothpaste as superior but was treating
\nColgate as  102% ‘interior’. It was not necessary that there
\nshould be  any direct reference about inferiority and it was
\nsufficient if  there was  an allusion,\thint  etc,  to\tthat
\neffect\tand   such  a  reference  prims\t facie\tamounted  to
\n‘disparagement’ for purposes of Section 36A(X). Adverting to
\nthe contention\tof the\tappellant that\tthere  would  be  no
\n‘disparagement;’ if  the factual  cata relied  upon  by\t the
\nappellant  was\t true,\tthe  Commission\t observed  that\t the
\nappellant has  produced\t opinions  of  “certain\t experts  to
\ncontrovert the\tcase of\t Colgate”,  that Colgate,  have also
\nbrought\t on   record  certain\ttest-regarts  from  certains
\ninstitutions  including\t  one  from    Haffkine\t Institute.,
\nAccording to  the respondents, there was not much difference
\nbetween the  Pepsodent (old version) and the ‘New Pepsodent’
\nmarketed buy  the appellant. As the old one was not superior
\nto  Colgate,   the  new\t one  was  also\t not  superior.\t The
\nappellants also\t contended before  the Commission  that\t the
\nprotocols adopted  for testing\tthe  germ-content  were\t not
\nuniform and  that the  complainant a  protocols were not the
\ncorrect ones.  Adverting to these protocols., the Commission
\nreferred to the objection of the appellant, as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     At this state, it may be noted that
\n     the       case\t   of\t     the
\n     applicants\/complainant   is    that
\n     Colgate offered  to the  respondent
\n     that  the\ttest  of  the  concerned
\n     toothpaste products of both colgate
\n     and  the\trespondent   should   be
\n     carried out  by certain experts who
\n     should decide  their own  protocols
\n     for the  puspcse. It  appears  that
\n     the respondent  has not  agreed  to
\n     it”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Having states as above in regard top the protocols, the
\nCommission noticed  that so  far as  the  claims  of  102  %
\nbacterial superiority  was concerned,  it was a matter which
\nrequired a  highly scientific approach and should be decided
\nby independent\texperts and  it would  be hazardous  for the
\nCommission to  venture even  a prima facie. It then referred
\nto the\tvoluntary suggestion of the appellant for appointing
\na panel of experts. as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     ” In fact , the respondent has also
\n     volunteered in  its reply that this
\n     may be  done by  a team of experts.
\n     That may  be done\tat the\tstage of
\n     final  hearing.   If  the\t parties
\n     agree,  it\t  can  be  done\t at  the
\n     interim stages  also, provided each
\n     side furnishes the names of experts
\n     with their consent to give opinion,
\n     if so  desired by\tthe  Commission,
\n     within  the   reasonably  specified
\n     time limit…”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Thus, by  adverting to the suggestion of the appellant,
\nand relying  on the same the Commission felt that the claims
\nof superiority\tof the appellant and the respondent could be
\ndecided by  an expert body, which could submit its report in
\n4 or  5 months. For that purpose each side could suggest the
\nname of\t an expert and the Commission would nominate a third
\nexpert. Parties\t were to  give the names in a fortnight, The
\ncommission then\t stated that  thus was\ta  purely  temporary
\ninterim order. It said that this was:\n<\/p>\n
     “a purely\ttemporary interim order,
\n     subject to\t modification, variation
\n     or\t vacation   after  perusing  the
\n     opinion of the panel of experts-.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The Commission  therefore held  that  prima  facie\t the
\nreference in  the appellant advertisements were referable to
\nColgate and  that because  of the  claim  or  anti-bacterial
\nsuperiority, a\torima facie  case  for\tpurpose\t of  interim
\nrelief was  made. It referred to Colgate Palmolive Pvt. Ltd.
\nVs. Rexona  Pty. Ltd.  (1981) 37  ALR 391  (Australia) where
\ntemporary injunction  was granted  against making  such tall
\nclaims” till  the truthfulness\tof the claim was established
\nat the trial. The Commission, then went into the question of
\n‘balance of  convenience’ and  held that  the representation
\nthrough the  media, in\tparticular through the TV was likely
\nto make\t consumers take\t the  appellants  claim\t as  a\ttrue
\nstatement’ If  not as  the gospel  truth’ and that there was
\nevidence filed by Colgate showing that there was a reduction
\nof 5%  of its sales in August 1997 and 8% in September 1997.
\nThe Commission observed that the appellant was not likely to
\nsuffer much  if interim\t relief was  granted  and  if  fact,
\nappellant would be saving on its advertisement expenses.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  basis of  the   above reasoning, the Commission
\ngranted a temporary interim injunction against the appellant
\nfrom making  any reference  ‘directly or  indirectly in\t the
\nappellants advertisement claiming anti-bacterial superiority
\nand  also   from  making  any  ‘specific  quantum’  of\tanti
\nbacterial superiority “till its claim of such anti bacterial
\nsuperiority is\tfully established”.  This would\t also be for
\nprotecting the Consumer’s interest. In the last paragraph of
\nthe order.,  the Commission  clarified that  the  injunction
\nwould apply   whether  the reference  to Colgate  was by any
\nallusion or hint.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  against the\t above order  of  temporary  interim
\ninjunction that\t this appeal  has been\tpreferred.  We\thave
\nheard elaborate\t arguments by  Shri  Harish  Salve  for\t the
\nappellant  and\t of  Sri   Soli\t J.  Sorabjee  for  the\t 1st
\nComplainant  and   of  Shri   Iqbal  Chegla   for  the\t 2nd
\nComplainant.\n<\/p>\n
     The   point    for\t  consideration\t  is   whether\t the
\ndiscretionary order  of temporary interim injunction granted
\nbuy the\t Commission p[ending  the passing of final order sin
\nthe  Injunction\t  application  filled  by  the\trespondents-
\ncomplainants, is liable to be set aside or modified?\n<\/p>\n
     From the  facts set  out above,  it is  clear that\t the
\nCommission has granted a temporary injunction which is of an
\n‘interim nature\t and the  Commission is\t yet to pass further
\norders in  the same injunction application, after receipt of
\nthe opinion  of the panel of experts. It is also to be noted
\nthat the  Commission proposed  the appointment\tof an expert
\npanel for  two reasons. The first reason was that both sides
\nwere relying  upon laboratory tests or opinions of their own
\nexperts. These\topinions were conflicting and the Commission
\nhad no\tmachinery of  its own  to verify  the claims  of the
\nparties unless\ta body\tof experts could give its opinion to
\nthe  Commission.   The\tsecond\t reasons  according  to\t the
\nCommission was\tthat the  appellant itself  volunteered\t and
\nsuggested  that such a panel of experts could be appointed.\n<\/p>\n
     There was\tsome  argument\tbefore\tus  by\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  the appellant that appellant had nor agreed for
\nthe panel  as stated  in the  order. In\t this behalf. we are
\nsatisfied that\twhat the  Commission had stated in its order
\nis correct  and is  clearly borne  out by what the appellant
\nhad stated  in its  re[ply before  the Commission.  In fact,
\nafter the  Commission had passed its orders on 5\/6 November,
\n1997, the  appellant gave  an advertisement  on 6.11.1997 in
\nthe press  to the effect that the Commission had appointed a
\npanel of experts at the suggestion of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     It was, however, vehemently argued by Shri Harish Salve
\nfor the\t appellant that\t the 1st  complainant put forward it
\ncase upon  clause (x)  of Section 36A and under that clause,
\nunless\tit  was\t ”  proved”  by\t the  complainant  that\t the
\nappellant had  ” given false or misleading facts disparaging
\nthe goods.,  service or\t trade” of  the 1st  complainant, it
\ncould not  be said,  even prima\t facie, ” that the appellant
\nwas guilty  of any  ‘unfair trade  practice; referred  to in
\nthat  sub-clause.  Learned  counsel  relied  upon  Lakhanpal
\nNational Ltd.  vs. MRTS Commission<\/a> _ 1989 (3) SCC 251- which
\nhas also  been referred to by the Commission in the impugned
\norder and  to judgements  of Courts in UK and USA and to the
\nprinciples of  law stated  in several  books, for contending
\nthat unless  it was  established by the complainant that the
\nfacts stated  in the  advertisement were ‘false’ or  untrue’
\nit could not be said that there was unfair trade practice or
\ndisparagement. Learned\tcounsel also relied upon Section 12A
\nof the Act which deals with grant of Temporary injunction by
\nthe  Commission\t and  contended\t that  the  said  provisions
\nrequires ‘proof\t of an\tunfair trade practice’ and also that
\nsuch practice  was likely  to  affect  prejudicially  public
\ninterest or the interests of traders or consumers generally.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  other  hand,  it  was  contended  by  Sri\tSoli
\nSorabjee for  the respondent and by sri Iqbal Chagla for the
\n2nd respondent\tthat the  above contentions  are not correct
\nand that  this was an appeal under Section 55 of the Act and
\nthe grounds  available in the appeal are the same grounds as
\nspecified in  Section 100 C.P.C\t (before the 1976 Amendment)
\nand that  the discretion  exercised by\tthe  Commission\t was
\nproper in  the circumstances  of the case, that the claim of
\nthe 1st\t  complainant was not only under Section 36A (k) but
\nalso under Section 36A (vii) and under the latter clause, it
\nwas sufficient\tfor the\t purpose of  proving an unfair trade
\npractice’ that\tthe appellant had made a representation in a
\nform which purported to be a warranty or guarantee and which
\nwas materially\tmisleading or  that there  was no reasonable
\nprospect that  such warranty  or guarantee  would be carried
\nout. It was also argued that the conduct of the appellant in
\nhaving voluntarily  proposed the  appointment of  a panel of
\nexperts has to be taken into account in deciding whether the
\nCommission went wrong in directing an expert body. which was
\nto be nominated as stated in the order, to give its opinion.\n<\/p>\n
     On a  consideration of  the above\tcontentions and on a
\ncareful appraisal  of the  season given by Commission we are
\nof the\tview that  the order  passed by the Commission was a
\npurely discretionary  order and\t was also  an interim  order
\np[ending  the\tpassing\t of   a\t final\torder  of  temporary
\ninjunction and\tis not\tliable to be interfered with in this
\nappeal. As  stated earlier,  a reading\tof the\tCommission’s
\norder snows  that it  noticed that the appellant was playing
\nupon opinions  of experts  to substantiate its claim of 102%
\nsuperiority in\tanti-bacterial action  while the respondent,
\n1st experts  to contradict the appellant’s claim. The matter
\nbeing technical\t in  nature,  if  the  Commission  felt,  as
\nsuggested by  the appellant  in its  reply, that  a panel of
\nexperts could  go into\tthe correctness\t of rival claims and
\ngive its  opinion and  if the  Commission further  said that
\nafter the  opinion was given, parties could make their final
\nsubmissions  in\t  the  Injunction  application\tand  if\t the
\nCommission felt that till then an order of an interim nature
\nshould operate,\t we do\tnot think  that it is a fit case for
\ninterference with  such a  discretionary order,\t we  do\t not
\ntherefore propose  to go into the merits of the contentions.
\nFurther, any  expression of  opinion by this Court on merits
\nat this\t preliminary stage  could  cause  prejudice  to\t the
\nclaims and contentions of one or other of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  aforesaid reasons,  This appeal  fails and  is
\ndismissed. We  may make\t it clear  that\t we  should  not  be
\nunderstood as  having  stated  anything\t on  the  merits  of
\ncontentions either  of the complainants or of the appellant.
\nIn the\tcircumstances of the case, there will be no order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 Bench: S.C. Sen, M. Jagannadha Rao. PETITIONER: HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COLGATE PALMOLIVE (I) LTD. & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/12\/1997 BENCH: S.C. SEN, M. JAGANNADHA RAO. ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-174791","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nHindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\"},\"wordCount\":2872,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\",\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997","datePublished":"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997"},"wordCount":2872,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997","name":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-12-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-14T18:58:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/hindustan-lever-ltd-vs-colgate-palmolive-i-ltd-anr-on-17-december-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hindustan Lever Ltd vs Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd. & Anr on 17 December, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174791","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=174791"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/174791\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=174791"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=174791"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=174791"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}