{"id":6847,"date":"2010-05-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-05-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010"},"modified":"2016-05-14T20:37:44","modified_gmt":"2016-05-14T15:07:44","slug":"ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Rajiv Shakdher<\/div>\n
                     THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                                  Judgment delivered on: 17.05.2010\n\n                IA No. 4600\/2010 (under O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 664\/2010\n\n\nM\/S EUREKA FORBES LIMITED                                         ..... PLAINTIFF\n\n                                                 Vs\n\n\nKENT RO SYSTEMS                                                   ..... DEFENDANT\n\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\n\nFor the Plaintiff:       Mr C Mukund with Mr G K Singh, Mr P V Sarvanaraja & Mr Firdaus Wani,\n                         Advocates for the plaintiff.\nFor the Defendant:       Mr Sudhir Chandra, Sr Advocate with Ms Rajeshwari Hariharan, Mr S K Tiwari\n                         & Ms Vani Panta\n\nCORAM :-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n1.<\/pre>\n
       Whether the Reporters of local papers may
\n         be allowed to see the judgment ?                         Yes\n<\/p>\n
2.       To be referred to Reporters or not ?                     Yes\n<\/p>\n
3.       Whether the judgment should be reported
\n         in the Digest ?                                          Yes<\/p>\n
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J<\/p>\n
IA No. 4600\/2010 (under O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC)<\/p>\n
1.       By this order I propose to dispose of the captioned application. I may only notice<\/p>\n
the fact that at the proceedings held on 15.04.2010 it had been agreed before me by<\/p>\n
counsel on both sides that since the issue involved related to a particular advertisement<\/p>\n
issued by the defendant, the suit could perhaps be finally disposed of on the basis of<\/p>\n
documents and evidence by way of affidavits. Timeline were fixed for completion of<\/p>\n
pleadings, filing of affidavits by way of evidence and additional documents, if any. It<\/p>\n
had been made clear that in the event for some reasons the suit could not be disposed of<\/p>\n
then, the plaintiff\u201fs application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil<\/p>\n
Procedure, 1908 (in short \u201eCPC\u201f) shall be heard. It appears that even though pleadings<\/p>\n
have been completed and affidavits of evidence have been filed, the defendant has filed<\/p>\n
certain additional documents to which the plaintiff\u201fs counsel has an objection. Thus, it is
\nCS(OS) 664-2010                                                                   Page 1 of 12<\/span>
\n agreed before me by both counsels that the captioned application be taken up for hearing<\/p>\n
based on the pleadings filed by both parties. The plaintiff agreed that the defendant could<\/p>\n
rely on the first set of documents filed on 03.05.2010.\n<\/p>\n
2.     With this prefatory note, let me take up the captioned application for disposal.<\/p>\n
The scope of controversy falls in a narrow compass. The plaintiff has impugned the<\/p>\n
defendant\u201fs advertisement which is extracted at Page 19 of the plaint. For a better<\/p>\n
appreciation of the controversy in issue, the impugned advertisement is extracted by me<\/p>\n
hereinbelow:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
3.     The gravemen of the plaintiff\u201fs case is that the impugned advertisement<\/p>\n
disparages the water purifiers manufactured by it, which are based on both Ultra Violet<\/p>\n
(UV) and Reverse Osmosis (RO) technology by comparing them with latest water<\/p>\n
purifier manufactured by the defendant. In other words, it is the plaintiff\u201fs case that the<\/p>\n
water purifiers shown in the advertisement, which are evidently based on UV or RO<\/p>\n
technology, have been depicted in a poor light as compared to the defendant\u201fs product,<\/p>\n
which is, a combination of RO and UV technology, in addition to its apparent ability of<\/p>\n
carrying out ultra filtration (UF), and getting rid of turbidity and dissolved substances (in<\/p>\n
short TDS).\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                              Page 2 of 12<\/span><\/p>\n
\n 3.1    The plaintiff contends that they have been in the business of manufacture of water<\/p>\n
purifier under the super brand aquaguard since 1982, and consequently as of today, has<\/p>\n
more than 70% of the market share in water purification segment. It is further contended<\/p>\n
that it operates in 135 cities across India, and has also expanded its business to 1515<\/p>\n
towns and 400 small towns through its Franchisee Direct Operations (F.D.Os) and a<\/p>\n
retinue of 13,000 dealers, spread all over the country. In nutshell, the plaintiff\u201fs claim is<\/p>\n
that UV and RO are synonymous with it.         As a matter of fact, in the plaint there is a<\/p>\n
reference to various models of the products which are sold under a variety of brands and<\/p>\n
sub-brands carrying the suffix UV, RO and UF.            Some of these examples being:<\/p>\n
Aquaguard Total Sensa SMP+ e-boiling-UV+RO+ UF (with Ultra Filtration), Aquaguard<\/p>\n
Integra Hi Life (RO+UV+UF\/NF), Aquaguard RO (Silver Nano Series), Aquaguard<\/p>\n
Total RO Reviva, Aquaguard Total RO (Protec+), e.t.c.\n<\/p>\n
3.2    Based on the above, it is contended that the reference to UV and RO in the<\/p>\n
impugned advertisement could only be directed towards the plaintiff. It is further<\/p>\n
submitted that the impugned advertisement shows purifiers based on UV and RO<\/p>\n
technology in a poor light, as the advertisement first poses a question as to the purity of<\/p>\n
the water and then alludes to the water purification machines. The ones which are based<\/p>\n
on UV or RO technology are in effect shown as being less effective in treatment of water<\/p>\n
as against the one manufactured and sold by the defendant which has a combination of<\/p>\n
UV, RO, UF and TDS control technology. It is also contended that the impugned<\/p>\n
advertisement sends out a false message in as much as it states that a water purification<\/p>\n
machine, which is based on UV technology, can remove only bacteria and viruses,<\/p>\n
whereas the truth is otherwise, which is, that such machine can in addition remove<\/p>\n
dissolved impurities besides residues, micro organisms, chemicals, such as chlorine, as<\/p>\n
also turbidity due to mud particles, amongst others. Similarly, a water purification based<\/p>\n
on RO technology not only removes dissolved impurities, but does all that which, a water<\/p>\n
purification machine based on UV technology can do.              It is stated that a water<\/p>\n
purification system based on RO technology can also remove minerals as also inorganic<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                              Page 3 of 12<\/span>
\n salts present in the water. It is the plaintiff\u201fs claim that while, it has no objection to the<\/p>\n
defendant advertising its own product, which evidently has various attributes but it<\/p>\n
certainly cannot discredit water purifiers based on UV or RO technology as such a<\/p>\n
advertisement campaign directly effects the plaintiff market, in such like, products. The<\/p>\n
plaintiff\u201fs contention is that the sole purpose of such a campaign launched by the<\/p>\n
defendant is only to increase the market share of its own product at its cost. The plaintiff<\/p>\n
claims that they have spent a lot of money in educating the customers and public at large<\/p>\n
as to the type of water purification machines that they require, based on quality of water<\/p>\n
available in their locality. The argument is that a water purifier based on RO technology<\/p>\n
may be useful in areas where the water is hard and turbid, whereas in locations in which<\/p>\n
it is not so, a water purifier based on UV technology may suffice. The reason being that:<\/p>\n
if a water purifier based on RO technology is used in such areas it may exclude from the<\/p>\n
water the bad as well as good minerals, therefore, denuding the water of its good qualities<\/p>\n
and in the long run, it may be harmful to the health of the consumers.<\/p>\n
4.     The defendant, on the other hand, has averred that there is no disparagement of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff\u201fs products as alleged or at all. It is averred that the plaintiff has failed to<\/p>\n
disclose that the UV technology for water purification has been in existence for more<\/p>\n
than 30 years, and that the plaintiff is not the inventor of the said technology. It is<\/p>\n
specifically averred that the plaintiff has sought to convey that UV technology is<\/p>\n
exclusively associated with the plaintiff\u201fs product and, therefore, by implication<\/p>\n
disparages UV and RO based water purification machines marketed by the plaintiff. It is<\/p>\n
averred that the suit instituted by the plaintiff has been instituted to harass the defendant<\/p>\n
and to create non existent doubts in the minds of the consumers. It is averred that the<\/p>\n
defendant and its predecessor has been in existence since 1999. Since the introduction of<\/p>\n
the RO technology in 1999, the defendant has been using it for its own water purification<\/p>\n
machines. The said water purification machines were sold by the defendant under the<\/p>\n
mark KENT. A reference has been made in paragraph 4 of the written statement to the<\/p>\n
various trade marks which have been registered or applied for. In paragraph 8 a reference<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                               Page 4 of 12<\/span>
\n has been made to its annual sales as also amounts spent on advertisements– which by no<\/p>\n
standards are insignificant.       The defendant specifically states that UV and RO<\/p>\n
technology are not associated with the plaintiff\u201fs water purifiers. It is contended that<\/p>\n
these are generic words and it cannot be monopolized by a single entity. It is further<\/p>\n
averred that the copyright registration(s) secured by the plaintiff are irrelevant to the issue<\/p>\n
raised in the present suit. In so far as its own machine is concerned, the defendant has<\/p>\n
averred that even though it is desirable that the limit of T.D.S in water should not exceed<\/p>\n
500 mg per litre, the minimum level of solids that can be present in the water has not<\/p>\n
been standardized, and it varies from one geographical location to another. It is further<\/p>\n
averred that in some cases where water is found to contain solids of 500 mg per litre, it<\/p>\n
still contains harmful solids such as arsenic, iron dust etc; of very high levels, which<\/p>\n
approximate to 200-300 mg per litre. Therefore, in such cases the levels of TDS are<\/p>\n
required to be adjusted. The defendant claims that it has invented\/devised a new water<\/p>\n
purifying machine which can adjust the TDS in water to a desirable limit to cater to the<\/p>\n
geographical location of the consumer. The defendant, in respect of this machine, which<\/p>\n
is also shown in the impugned advertisement, has obtained a patent. The defendant<\/p>\n
further submits that there is no attempt to disparage the plaintiff\u201fs product; as a matter of<\/p>\n
fact the advertisement is issued only to promote its own machines and to inform the<\/p>\n
public of the benefits of its products and range of products made available by the<\/p>\n
defendant. It is further averred that the advertisement issued by the defendant states true<\/p>\n
facts about different technologies i.e., RO, UV or the combination of RO+UF+UV+TDS.<\/p>\n
It is claimed by the defendant that it manufactures all three variants of the water<\/p>\n
purification machines. The stand, therefore, is: the products depicted in the advertisement<\/p>\n
are exclusively the products of the defendant. In this context it is stated that the shape<\/p>\n
and configuration of the plaintiff\u201fs product and that of the defendant are completely<\/p>\n
different. (See Para 2(i) and (j) of the reply on merits of the WS) Since the assertions<\/p>\n
made, in particular, of paragraph 2(j) being relevant are extracted hereinbelow:-<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                                Page 5 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
        “The products depicted in the advertisement are exclusively the products of
\n       the defendant; the cabinets depicted are those of the defendant. The
\n       advertisement only states facts about various products of the defendant. It is
\n       a well known fact that the shape and configuration of the plaintiff’s
\n       product and that of the defendant are completely different.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                             (emphasis is mine)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
5.     In support of his submissions, Mr Mukund who appears for the plaintiff has<\/p>\n
contended before me that the impugned advertisement is a case of direct disparagement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This argument, of course, is premised on the averments made in the plaint that UV and<\/p>\n
RO based water purification machines are relatable only to the plaintiff. In support of<\/p>\n
this submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High<\/p>\n
Court in the case of Eureka Forbes Limited vs Pentair Water India Limited: 2007 (35)<\/p>\n
PTC 556 (Karnataka). In the alternative, Mr Mukund has submitted that this Court in<\/p>\n
several judgments has held disparagement could be both overt or covert, therefore, the<\/p>\n
reference in the impugned advertisement to the water purification machines based on UV<\/p>\n
and RO technology being less useful has resulted in committal of a tort qua the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff is thus entitled to seek an appropriate relief from the Court. In support of<\/p>\n
this submission, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment in the case of Dabur India<\/p>\n
Ltd. vs Emami India Ltd.<\/a> 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del) and Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited<\/p>\n
vs Hindustan Lever Limited: 2008 (38) PTC 139 (Delhi).         The last submission of the<\/p>\n
learned counsel was that in any event the statement made in the advertisement is false, in<\/p>\n
as much as it is a half truth as the water purification machines based on UV or RO<\/p>\n
technology do more than what is indicated in the impugned advertisement. In support of<\/p>\n
his submissions the learned counsel has relied upon the standards laid down by the<\/p>\n
Bureau of Indian Standards (in short BIS) with regard to water purifiers. Based on the<\/p>\n
standards laid down by BIS, it was contended that UV based water purifier is mandatorily<\/p>\n
required to have an activated carbon filter which enables exclusion of dissolved<\/p>\n
impurities such as mud solids etc. The argument was that the advertisement therefore<\/p>\n
incorrectly alluded to the fact that a UV machine could only destroy bacteria and virus.<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                            Page 6 of 12<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 6.      In rebuttal, Mr Chandra who appears for the defendant, refuted the arguments of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff.    The main thrust of Mr Chandra\u201fs arguments was that the impugned<\/p>\n
advertisement neither overtly or covertly refers nor alludes to the plaintiff\u201fs product. It is<\/p>\n
contended that both UV and RO technology are available for use by those who are in the<\/p>\n
business of manufacturing water purification machines, and, therefore, if the plaintiff\u201fs<\/p>\n
argument was accepted it would amount to accepting its monopoly over a technology, of<\/p>\n
which, it is not an inventor. The submission of Mr Chandra is that in the impugned<\/p>\n
advertisement the defendant is attempting to demonstrate that it has graduated from<\/p>\n
machines which are based on UV and RO technology to a more advanced water<\/p>\n
purification machine which is a combination of UV, UF, RO and TDS control<\/p>\n
technology. In support of his submission, Mr Chandra referred to the patent that the<\/p>\n
defendant had acquired in respect of its most advanced machines i.e., the Mineral RO<\/p>\n
water purifier (Mineral RO); which it presently manufactures alongwith those which are<\/p>\n
based solely on UV and RO technology. Mr Chandra submitted that the advertisement<\/p>\n
states only the facts with regard to UV and RO technology and there is no negativity<\/p>\n
depicted qua any of the two technologies i.e., UV and RO. In other words, Mr Chandra\u201fs<\/p>\n
contention is that the plaintiff\u201fs action for disparagement is based on a perception of<\/p>\n
disparagement which cannot and ought not to be entertained by the Court.<\/p>\n
6.1     In so far as the submission of the plaintiff as regards adherence to standards laid<\/p>\n
down by BIS was concerned, Mr Chandra submitted that these standards allude to water<\/p>\n
purifiers, and not to the technology involved. In any event, it was the learned counsel\u201fs<\/p>\n
contention that the standards are not mandatory and only those who want to conform to<\/p>\n
the said standards are required to adopt the same.\n<\/p>\n
6.2     As regards the contention of the plaintiff that interim order dated 13.04.2005<\/p>\n
passed in CS(OS) No. 492\/2005 would operate against the defendant in so far as UV<\/p>\n
based water purifiers are concerned, Mr Chandra submitted that it was an ex-parte interim<\/p>\n
order which did not contain any reasons and hence, would not come in the way of the<\/p>\n
Court in dealing with the impugned advertisement. Mr Chandra concluded by saying that<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                               Page 7 of 12<\/span>
\n the plaintiff was being \u201ehyper sensitive\u201f with regard to the impugned advertisement<\/p>\n
which neither disparaged nor intended to disparage the plaintiff\u201fs product, as alleged, or<\/p>\n
at all. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Division Bench in the case of Dabur India Limited vs Colortek Meghalaya Private<\/p>\n
Limited and Godrej Sara-Lee 167 (2010) DLT 278.\n<\/p>\n
6.      I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the discussion above,<\/p>\n
according to me the following points arise for consideration:-<\/p>\n
(i)     Whether the impugned advertisement overtly or covertly makes a reference to the<\/p>\n
        plaintiff\u201fs water purification machines?\n<\/p>\n
(ii)    If the answer to the first issue is in the affirmative, then does the impugned<\/p>\n
        advertisement disparage the plaintiff\u201fs product?\n<\/p>\n
(iii)   If the answer to the Issue Nos (i) and (ii) is in the affirmative, is the plaintiff<\/p>\n
        entitled to an injunction?\n<\/p>\n
(iv)    Is the impugned advertisement in line with the observations made by the Division<\/p>\n
        Bench of this Court in the case of Dabur India Limited (supra) made in<\/p>\n
        paragraph 23 at page 284 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\nPOINT NO. I<\/p>\n
7.      The plaintiff\u201fs argument that there is a direct reference to its product or at least in<\/p>\n
the alternative an indirect reference to it, is according to me untenable. The reason for<\/p>\n
this is that this argument is entirely pivoted on the premise that the use of UV or RO<\/p>\n
technology in relation to water purifiers is relatable only to the plaintiff. In my view,<\/p>\n
nothing could be more inaccurate. UV technology as the literature produced by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff itself would show the use of UV rays in the treatment of water. This process is<\/p>\n
also known as electronic boiling. These ultra violet rays are supposedly more intense than<\/p>\n
the normal sunlight and hence, help in eliminating water borne disease caused from<\/p>\n
bacteria, viruses and protozoas.      Similarly, a water purifier which is based on RO<\/p>\n
technology involves usage of membranes which, act as filters to help remove<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                                Page 8 of 12<\/span>
\n contaminates from the water. RO is also referred to as “hyper filtration” — a technology<\/p>\n
which is commonly used by companies which trade in bottled water, amongst others.<\/p>\n
The fact that the plaintiff has obtained registrations or has filed applications for<\/p>\n
registrations of trade mark which bear suffixes like UV and RO alongside the mark could<\/p>\n
not, in my view, lead to a conclusion that UV and RO are related to plaintiff\u201fs products.<\/p>\n
It is not disputed by the plaintiff that the defendant has also been using marks which<\/p>\n
advert to the RO technology or to both RO and UV technology. The examples being:<\/p>\n
KENT Mineral RO Water Purifier (logo), Mineral RO, KENT Ultra Violet Water<\/p>\n
Purifiers (logo), KENT Mineral RO Double Purification Technology RO+UV+Minerals<\/p>\n
(logo). This apart, the plaintiff has referred to a document at Page 122 which alludes to a<\/p>\n
water purifier evidently manufactured by Philips. The said document bears the following<\/p>\n
statement: “Philips Intelligent Water Purifier, with advanced UV technology and<\/p>\n
Activated Carbon to purify water”. Therefore, in my view, this submission of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
8.     In view of my finding at Point No. I, Point No. II does not arise for consideration,<\/p>\n
however, since arguments have been advanced by the counsels that there is a generic<\/p>\n
disparagement of water purifiers based on UV and RO technology, I shall deal with it.<\/p>\n
Before I deal with specifics of this case, I may only advert to the principles as to what an<\/p>\n
action of this kind entails. An action of this kind is really in the nature of “trade libel”.<\/p>\n
The trade libel is variedly referred as “malicious falsehood” or “injurious falsehood”.<\/p>\n
The Courts, however, have been using the expression malicious falsehood to describe a<\/p>\n
tort of the kind involved in the present case as against “trade libel” as these expressions<\/p>\n
perhaps present a narrower scope of the tort. For a plaintiff to succeed in an action for<\/p>\n
malicious falsehood he would have to plead and prove that the statement made in the<\/p>\n
impugned advertisement is untrue. The statement is made maliciously i.e., without just<\/p>\n
cause or excuse and the plaintiffs have suffered damage by such an action of the<\/p>\n
defendant.\n<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                              Page 9 of 12<\/span>
\n 8.1      In my view, if one were to literally accept what UV technology or RO technology<\/p>\n
can achieve what is stated in the impugned advertisement, is prima facie not false. It is<\/p>\n
not in dispute that ultra violet rays are used to electronically boil water which results in<\/p>\n
destructions of bacteria and viruses. Similarly, treating water by use of RO technology<\/p>\n
results in removal of dissolved impurities. Therefore, by itself there is no case for<\/p>\n
disparagement because what is stated is prima facie correct. This is more so, when seen,<\/p>\n
in the light of the averments made by the defendant that what they are seeking to do is to<\/p>\n
compare their own water purification machines which are based on UV or RO<\/p>\n
technology, with a more advanced version manufactured by it. In this connection it is<\/p>\n
alluded that the outline of the water purifier shown under the heading UV and RO are<\/p>\n
those of the defendant\u201fs product, and not that of the plaintiff. This is not crucially<\/p>\n
disputed by the plaintiff in the replication. The counsel for the plaintiff, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, submitted that the advertisement should be more explicit, in as much as, it should<\/p>\n
indicate in so many words that the machines shown under the caption UV and RO are<\/p>\n
those which belong to the defendant (Kent). In my view, such an argument really skirts<\/p>\n
the real issue, which is that the water purification machines shown in the impugned<\/p>\n
advertisement are those which the defendant manufactures. If it is so, then the plaintiff\u201fs<\/p>\n
submission to the contrary has to be rejected. The plaintiff, in any event, as noticed<\/p>\n
above, has not denied the said assertion. The plaintiff would have to live with the stand<\/p>\n
taken.\n<\/p>\n
POINT No. III<\/p>\n
9.       In view of my findings in respect of Point Nos I and II, I am of the view that<\/p>\n
plaintiff is not entitled to injunction as prayed for. The learned counsel for the plaintiff in<\/p>\n
support of his submissions apart from what was stated also referred to the interim order<\/p>\n
dated 13.04.2005 passed in CS(OS) No492\/2005, based on which, the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has submitted that the defendant cannot violate the interim order by<\/p>\n
comparing the water purifying system based on UV technology with the others in the<\/p>\n
impugned advertisement. Mr Mukund in this regard also brought to my notice the fact<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                                Page 10 of 12<\/span>
\n that an interlocutory application being IA No. 3027\/2005 was moved by the defendant for<\/p>\n
vacating the said interim order on which notice was issued on 20.04.2005. The said<\/p>\n
application according to the learned counsel is pending adjudication. In my view, the<\/p>\n
contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is erroneous for the reason that the ex-<\/p>\n
parte order which operates against the defendant is qua a different advertisement. The<\/p>\n
fact that the plaintiff has filed a fresh suit demonstrates the fallacy in the argument. The<\/p>\n
issuance of the advertisement which is subject matter of the dispute in the present suit<\/p>\n
gave rise to a fresh cause of action, which is why, the plaintiff filed the instant suit and<\/p>\n
the captioned application seeking injunction. If it was so covered by the earlier suit and<\/p>\n
the order passed therein, it would have perhaps have proceeded to file an application for<\/p>\n
contempt for seeking enforcement of the said order.          Therefore, in my view, this<\/p>\n
submission cannot be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
10.    In so far as the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are<\/p>\n
concerned, on facts, in my view, they are not applicable. What is observed in Dabur<\/p>\n
India Limited vs Emami Limited<\/a> in principle holds good. On facts the present case is<\/p>\n
distinguishable. Similarly, the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited Vs Hindustan<\/p>\n
Lever Limited on facts is not applicable. A perusal of the facts would show that there<\/p>\n
was a reference to the plaintiff\u201fs product in as much as the shape and colour were referred<\/p>\n
to by implication since the defendant had adopted the shape and the colour of “dettol<\/p>\n
soap”. Such is not the situation in the present case. In so far as the judgment of the<\/p>\n
Karnataka High Court in the case of Eureka Forbes Limited vs Pentair Water India<\/p>\n
Limited is concerned, the same is based on the premise that Aquaguard and UV<\/p>\n
technology are synonymous. With respect, I am not able to bring myself to agree with<\/p>\n
the view expressed therein.\n<\/p>\n
POINT No. IV<\/p>\n
11.     However, I am afraid in respect of the last issue I have not been able to persuade<\/p>\n
myself that the defendant ought not to clearly indicate in the impugned advertisement as<\/p>\n
to what are the other attributes of a water purification machines which are based on UV<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                             Page 11 of 12<\/span>
\n and RO technology. This issue attains greatest significance in the instant case in view of<\/p>\n
the fact that it is the defendant\u201fs stand in the written statement that the comparison of its<\/p>\n
latest machine is with its own water purification machines which are based on UV and<\/p>\n
RO technology. It is not the stand of the defendant that its own water purification<\/p>\n
machines which are based on UV and RO technology have limited attributes, as indicated<\/p>\n
in the impugned advertisement. Therefore, in a sense it is beyond the \u201egrey areas\u201f to<\/p>\n
which the Division Bench of this Court has alluded to in the judgment of Dabur India<\/p>\n
Limited vs Emami Limited. In<\/a> my opinion, it would help the cause of a common<\/p>\n
consumer if the defendant in line with its own stand indicates the other attributes of its<\/p>\n
water purification machines which are based on UV and RO technology. The defendant<\/p>\n
cannot argue that its water purification machines do not contain an activated carbon filter<\/p>\n
and hence, are incapable of removing other impurities apart from destroying bacteria and<\/p>\n
viruses. I would imagine same is the case with its water purification machines which are<\/p>\n
based on RO technology. A good example is that of the machines manufactured by<\/p>\n
Philips to which I have made a reference hereinabove. I, therefore, direct that the<\/p>\n
defendant shall make suitable amendments in the impugned advertisement to bring to<\/p>\n
fore the other attributes of the water purification machines shown under the caption UV<\/p>\n
and RO in the impugned advertisement. The order dated 15.04.2010 passed by me is<\/p>\n
accordingly modified.     The captioned application is disposed of with the aforesaid<\/p>\n
observations. This arrangement shall obtain during the pendency of the suit.<\/p>\n
12.    Needless to say any observations made hereinabove will not come in the way of<\/p>\n
decision on merits.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                      RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
\nMAY 17, 2010
\nmb<\/p>\n
CS(OS) 664-2010                                                              Page 12 of 12<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 Author: Rajiv Shakdher THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 17.05.2010 IA No. 4600\/2010 (under O.39 R.1 & 2 CPC) in CS(OS) No. 664\/2010 M\/S EUREKA FORBES LIMITED ….. PLAINTIFF Vs KENT RO SYSTEMS ….. […]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6847","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - 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\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-14T15:07:44+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=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T15:07:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4284,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-14T15:07:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - 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\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-14T15:07:44+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":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010","datePublished":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T15:07:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010"},"wordCount":4284,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010","name":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-05-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-14T15:07:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-eureka-forbes-limited-vs-kent-ro-systems-on-17-may-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Eureka Forbes Limited vs Kent Ro Systems on 17 May, 2010"}]},{"@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\/6847","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=6847"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6847\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6847"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6847"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6847"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}