9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (10) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 36A(1)(x), read with Section 36B(a) and (d), of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. It stated that the complainant was engaged in the business of ultramarine blue since 1982 and gained substantial experience in the said line of trade. The brand name of its product (liquid ultramarine blue) "Regaul" was alleged to be very popular in India, specially in the South. Subsequently, the respondent also entered the said field and started manufacturing and selling liquid blue under the brand name "Ujala". As part of a sales promotion drive, the respondent launched a publicity campaign for boosting the sales of its product, advertising it in the newspapers as well as through Doordarshan, Madras. It was further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... press media also the informant's product is disparaged. From the above facts it appears to the Commission that the respondents have indulged in the unfair trade practice of "disparaging the goods, services or trade of another person" attracting Section 36A(1)(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. A copy of the information received by the Commission is enclosed for ready reference.' 3. In response to the notice of enquiry the first respondent submitted its reply, denying the charge that it has in any way attempted to disparage the complainant's product, or that it has otherwise indulged in any unfair trade practice falling within Section 36A(1)(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A(1)(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, as alleged ? 3. If the answer to issue No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether the unfair trade practice as alleged is prejudicial to public interest, the interest of the consumer or consumers generally ? 4. Relief. 5. In support of the charge only one witness was examined by the Director-General, namely, Shri Balasundram, the complainant himself. Earlier his affidavit had been filed by way of examination-in-chief which is marked exhibit A-1. Shri Balasundram was cross-examined extensively by the respondent's counsel. On behalf of the respondent Shri Anjan Chatterjee was examined. Shri Chatterjee was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue is whether the respondents or either of them have indulged in unfair trade practices within the meaning of Section 36A(1)(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. The contents of the notice of enquiry have already been reproduced hereinabove. A glance at the same would show that the impugned advertisement screened by the Doordarshan Kendra, Madras, was directed specifically and solely against ultramarine blue marketed by the complainant's concern under the brand name "Regaul". The notice expressly states that the advertisement released by the first respondent was designed to convey a wrong and misleading visual description of the complainant's product in view of the blue colour of the container whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10. We do think that the words "goods of another person" have a definite connotation. It implies disparagement of the product of an identifiable manufacturer. In the present case, the bottle shown on the TV is not relatable to the product of either the informant or the bottle in which he is marketing the product or even of any other manufacturer, for that matter. Indeed, the whole of the impugned advertisement takes but a few fleeting seconds within which it is impossible to identify the product or its manufacturer or the brand which is said to have been disparaged. The basic requirement of Clause (x) of Section 36A has thus remained unsubstantiated in the present case. All that could be said after viewing the impugned advertise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and advertisement of one's product with a view to boosting sales is a legitimate market strategy, provided, of course, the undertaking or the individual keeps within the bounds of the provisions of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act. In this connection, another principle which has been recognised by the Commission time and again is that a certain degree of puffing up of one's product is permissible. The impugned advertisement, at worst, is in our opinion simply an instance of puffing up, but certainly not disparagement of the goods of any identifiable manufacturer. 12. The second issue must, therefore, be answered in the negative in favour of the respondent. The second issue having been answered in the negative th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
