In Reckitt & Colman v Kiwi T.T.K. (Delhi High Court, 1996), Kiwi's television advertisement showed its…
The Court held that "though a comparative advertisement is admissible", it must not disparage a rival, and that after removal of the red blob 'Brand X' "cannot be linked to…
Choose your answer
In Reckitt & Colman v Kiwi T.T.K. (Delhi High Court, 1996), Kiwi's television advertisement showed its liquid shoe polish not dripping, beside a dripping 'Brand X' bottle carrying a red blob like the cherry on Reckitt's Cherry Blossom bottle. Kiwi agreed to remove the red blob. The Court held that
Answer and explanation
Correct answer B
The Court held that "though a comparative advertisement is admissible", it must not disparage a rival, and that after removal of the red blob 'Brand X' "cannot be linked to the product of the plaintiff". Kiwi was therefore restrained only from using the version with the blob. The Court left the natural-wax dispute for trial, so no proof was required first.
Practice for these exams
-
All India Bar Examination (AIBE)
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
UGC NET Law
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
IIT Kharagpur LL.M. Entrance
Subject revision
See pack details on LawMint.net -
CUET PG Law (LL.M.)
Subject revision
-
Trade Marks Agent
Subject revision