Metro Tyres Ltd v. The Advertising Standards Council of India & Anr

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. MARCH 17, 2017 "gsr"

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % DATE OF DECISION: 17 TH, MARCH 2017 + CS(COMM) 1484/2016 & IA No.13737/2016 (u/O XXXIX R-1&2 CPC) METRO TYRES LTD ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Pravin Anand & Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Advs. Versus THE ADVERTISING STANDARDS COUNCIL OF INDIA & ANR ..... Defendants Through: Ms. Avni Singh, Adv. for D-1. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. The plaintiff, a manufacturer of tyres and tubes for two wheelers and three wheelers, instituted this suit i) for restraining the defendant no.2 MRF Limited (MRF), also a manufacturer of tyres and tubes, from issuing groundless threats to the plaintiff of the plaintiff in the advertisement of its products having plagiarised/infringed the copyright of MRF in the advertisement of MRF"s products and liability therefor; ii) for restraining the defendant no.2 MRF from promoting unfair competition with reference to plaintiff in any manner; iii) for declaration that such threats of institution of legal proceedings contained in MRF"s letter dated 18th October, 2016 are unjustifiable and the plaintiff does not infringe or copy the advertisement of MRF; iv) for restraining MRF from defaming the plaintiff in any oral or written communication; v) for restraining the defendant no.1 Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) from assessing or proceeding with the complaint of MRF; vi) for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.1 crore from MRF on account of loss of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff owing to the illegal activities of the defendants. 2. It was inter alia the case of the plaintiff in the suit titled "SUIT SEEKING RESTRAINT OF GROUNDLESS THREATS OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, DEFAMATION, DAMAGES ETC.": (i) that the plaintiff, in September, 2016, unveiled a new range of tyres for 150cc segment to 200-250cc segments and also high- end sports motorcycles; (ii) that the plaintiff, to promote its new product, got created advertisement from Prominent Advertising Services and the said advertisement appears on television, on the plaintiff"s website as well as through online content providers such as YouTube; (iii) that on 25th October, 2016, the plaintiff was shocked to receive a letter dated 21st October, 2016 from ASCI forwarding therewith complaint dated 18th October, 2016 received from MRF against the TV commercial of plaintiff and inviting plaintiff"s response thereto and informing the plaintiff that the complaint had been placed for deliberation before the Consumer Complaints Council of ASCI; (iv) that the MRF has complained that plaintiff"s advertisement blatantly copied MRF"s advertisement for its product REVZ Radial Tyres; (v) that the plaintiff has been wrongly accused of plagiarism / infringement; (vi) that the plaintiff sought extension of time from the ASCI for filing reply and denied any intent to plagiarise / infringe the copyright of MRF; (vii) that there is no visual similarity between plaintiff"s advertisement and MRF"s advertisement; (viii) that none can claim monopoly over the common underlying concept and idea; (ix) that ASCI does not have any authority to assess or even request the plaintiff to cease and desist from displaying the offending advertisement on national television; (x) that MRF"s act of sending such false, frivolous and baseless complaint to ASCI whose Board comprises of reputed members of the media and other eminent persons in the corporate sector clearly evidences the intention of MRF to defame and harm the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. 3. The suit came up for admission on 7th November, 2016 when being not convinced about the maintainability of the suit, the counsel for the plaintiff was heard. After hearing the counsel for the plaintiff further on 15th November, 2016, the following order was passed: ―1. The counsel for the plaintiff has been heard further today. 2. I am today also not satisfied about the maintainability of the present suit. 3. The plaintiff h