Skip to main content

Injunction against misleading TV Advert Granted within one of Commencing Proceedings

In a quick action before the Delhi High Court, Hamdard obtains injunction against defendant airing disparaging television advertisement. Vast potential for harm from social media and TV airings averted by order within one week of commencing proceedings.

Hamdard Group, a household name in India, has been engaged in the manufacture and sale of Unani and Ayurvedic products, medicines, oils and more for more than 100 years.

A popular product of Hamdard – ROGHAN BADAM SHIRIN – is a pure almond oil known for its high quality. Its packaging bears a unique and distinctive trade dress comprising an attractive colour combination of yellow with brown borders, layout and get-up with a prominent pictorial backdrop of shelled almonds.

Hamdard is the proprietor of all associated trademark rights in the brand. It also owns the copyright in the trade dress of ROGHAN BADAM SHIRIN.

Hamdard became aware of the defendant when it was alerted to an advertisement on television promoting its almond oil product under the name BADAM ROGHAN SHIRIN, aired in the first week of October. In the advertisement, a lookalike product packaging was shown with a voice message, delivered in Hindi by a celebrity known for advocating his healthy lifestyle. The message translates to:

“Save yourself from the loot/theft/robbery in the name of Badam Roghan Shirin”

The defendant had merely changed the order of the words to BADAM ROGHAN SHIRIN but was still infringing Hamdard’s trademark ROGHAN BADAM SHIRIN.

In essence, the message conveyed by the defendant was that Hamdard’s product was of an inferior quality and overpriced – a mis-statement of fact made with malice.

Apprehending that the advertisement that was being aired widely and repeatedly on various TV channels, would soon find its way on to social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook and websites like YouTube, causing irreversible harm to Hamdard’s reputation. Hamdard initiated a civil lawsuit before the Delhi High Court immediately.

The principal contention of Hamdard was that the defendant’s claim in its advertisement was false, defamatory and not a fair comment. Given such a defamatory claim, any person of ordinary prudence would be discouraged from trusting and purchasing Hamdard’s product.

In a swiftly passed order, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction, and the defendant and all associated parties were restrained from screening, posting and broadcasting the advertisement through any media.

Hamdard National Foundation & anr v Divya Pharmacy; Before the Delhi High Court; order dated 13.10.2017

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
Thought Leadership
Apr 12, 2025

‘First Published by Managing IP‘ By: Achuthan Sreekumar Achuthan Sreekumar of Anand and Anand draws on a recent High Court of Delhi ruling

Life and death matter? The protection of well-known personal names in India
Thought Leadership
Mar 27, 2025

‘First published on Lexology’ By: Safir Anand and Abhishek Paliwal India, one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, is on track to become a

Company Name vs. Trademark: Essential Insights for Establishing Your Business Brand in India
Thought Leadership
Mar 19, 2025

‘First published on Chambers and Partners’ By: Safir Anand and Twinky Rampal Law and Practice  1. Trade Mark and Copyright Law  1.1 Governing

Chambers Trademarks & Copyright 2025 | Law & Practice
Thought Leadership
Mar 19, 2025

‘First published on Chambers and Partners’ By: Safir Anand Introduction The landscape of intellectual property in India is undergoing a significant

Chambers Trademarks & Copyright 2025 | Trends and Developments