The Hon''ble Court disposed of an application by the applicant/plaintiff seeking to recast issues framed earlier regarding burden of proof and disputes over advertising disparagement of the MOOV brand product.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
A.No.1653 of 2022 in C.S.No.43 of 2020
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Heard Mr.R.Jawaharlal and Mr.Roshan Balasubramainan, learned counsel for the applicant and defendant.
proving the averments in the plaint, then the onus shifts to the defendants. It had been stated that therefore, the issues as framed should be revisited and reexamined by this Court.
2
cross examination.
5.It would have been appreciable, had the respondent not mentioned the statement made in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit.
6.Having examined pleadings, the issues are recast as follows;
"(i) Whether the defendant has disparaged, denigrated or tarnished the good will of the plaintiff in the advertisement impugned in the plaintiff;
(ii) Whether the plaintiff can claim monopoly over the color of its MOOV product;
(iii) Whether the impugned advertisement contains truthful claims and whether protection can be claimed as a free, commercial speech;
(iv) Whether the defendant had made any false statement relating to the product of the plaintiff in the advertisement impugned;
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from disparaging the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff over the brand MOOV;
(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting or
3
issuing the impugned advertisement with respect to the brand MOOV;
(vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from depicting the product of the plaintiff under the brand MOOV;
(viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from depicting any product of the plaintiff in their advertisements in any form whatsoever;
(ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages and if so what would be the quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiff;
(x) To what reliefs are the parties entitled to"
7 . The issues are recast as aforesaid. The Application stands
disposed of.
08.09.2022
mrm
4
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
mrm
A.No.1653 of 2022 in C.S.No.43 of 2020
08.09.2022
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the issues framed earlier require recast to correctly place the burden of proof on the plaintiff.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction and damages against the defendant regarding disparagement.
Plaintiff
Defendant
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
