The Delhi High Court has clarified that there is no legal necessity for a plaintiff to amend a plaint to challenge new advertisements if those advertisements are merely variations of a campaign that is already the subject matter of the suit, and the original pleadings are sufficient to cover the core issue of disparagement.
The Court emphasised that the final determination on the issue of ingredient disparagement as pleaded in the original suit would apply to all variations of the Defendant’s Fluoride awareness campaigns. Thus, allowing an amendment in such a scenario, especially after a significant delay, would not serve the purpose of Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which is to substantiate or expand pre-existing facts, and would run contrary to the objective of speedy disposal under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
The Court held that the challenge to the impugned advertisements of March and April 2025, relating to restraining Dabur India (Defendant), from disparaging “COLGATE” trademark and specifically the packaging of “COLGATE STRONG TEETH TOOTHPASTE”, already finds basis in the original plaint. Accordingly, the impugned advertisements were directed to be taken on record as additional documents, and Colgate Palmolive (Plaintiffs) were cautioned to proceed with the trial, failing which the suit would be liable for dismissal for non-prosecution.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora found merit in the Plaintiffs’ submission that the issue of “ingredient disparagement”, specifically concerning Fluoride, was already pleaded in the original plaint and in the prayer clause 63(v). Upon perusal of the pleadings, the Bench noted that the issue of whether the Defendant’s campaign results in ingredient disparagement already arises for consideration, and hence, the challenge to the advertisements did not change the nature or scope of the suit.
The Bench rejected the Defendant’s argument that the Plaintiffs were estopped from raising the issue of ingredient disparagement due to the withdrawal of its earlier application, and stated that the withdrawal order dated December 04, 2019 expressly reserved the Plaintiffs’ rights and contentions in pending applications. The issue of ingredient disparagement remained sub-judice and was not finally decided.
Observing that six years had passed since the suit was filed in 2019 and the pleadings were completed in 2020, the Bench pointed out that neither party had taken steps to proceed with the matter or press their interim applications between 2019 and 2025, during which the Defendant continued its modified advertisement campaign.
The Bench also found the amendment application to be procedurally deficient. It noted that the application merely narrated facts without identifying the specific portions of the plaint to be amended or explaining the purpose and legal basis for the amendments, making it difficult for the Court to assess it against the parameters of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
Briefly, the Plaintiffs, Colagate Palmolive, filed a suit in October 2019 seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the Defendant, Dabur India, from disparaging its “COLGATE” trademark and specifically the packaging of “COLGATE STRONG TEETH TOOTHPASTE”. The suit also sought to restrain the Defendant from making misleading advertisements about the ingredients of the Plaintiffs’ products.
The initial cause of action arose from a 2019 advertisement by the Defendant which the Plaintiffs alleged depicted their product’s red and blue packaging in a derogatory manner while also maligning the use of Fluoride. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on October 10, 2019, directing the Defendant to take down the advertisement. Thereafter, the Defendant modified the advertisement by replacing the red and blue packaging with a white carton and tube, and was permitted to publish this modified version by an order dated October 18, 2019. The Plaintiffs’ applications to recall this order and allege violation of the injunction were later withdrawn on December 04, 2019.
Later, in March 20, 2025, the Defendant published new advertisements that continued to highlight the alleged ill effects of excessive Fluoride intake. This led the Plaintiffs to file the present application to amend their original plaint to specifically challenge these 2025 advertisements.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, along with Advocates Saif Khan, Achuthan Sreekumar, Rohil Bansal, and Smriti Nair, for the Plaintiff
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, along with Advocates Manish Kumar Mishra, Jawahar Lal, Akansha Singh, Saransh Saini, Meghna Kumar, and Riya Kumar, for the Respondent
