JUDGMENT The Court : This is an interlocutory application in aid of a suit complaining of disparagement of goods. 2. In the morning, Mr. S.N. Mookerji, learned Senior Advocate, mentioned this application. He wanted leave to move it at 2 P.M. today. I granted such leave but directed the plaintiff to serve notice of this application along with a copy of the petition upon the defendant. 3. An affidavit-of-service has been filed which shows that the Eastern Regional Office of the defendant was served today at 11.40 A.M. None appears for the defendant. 4. The plaintiff manufactures and markets a soap called "Lifebuoy". 5. Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, learned Senior Advocate, moving the application shows me a registration certificate relating to design dated 12th June, 2008. The design of this soap is registered. It is stated in the certificate that "The novelty resides in the shape, configuration and surface pattern of the 'SOAP BAR' as illustrated." That illustration is at page 34 of the petition. It shows the top and bottom view of the soap. 6. The soap is red in colour. A sample is shown to me in Court. 7. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the advertisement depicted in Annexure B at pages 36 and 37 of the petition. The most offending part of the advertisement, according to the plaintiff, is the top left frame at page 37. It depicts a red soap and another soap called "Dettol". They are placed side by side. Dettol is described as 10 times more effective than the red soap. There is one green circle above the red soap, with some specks on it. There is another green circle over the Dettol soap with no speck on it. The following contentions are made :- a) An ordinary and prudent customer will easily identify the red soap to be the plaintiffs soap "Lifebuoy", because of the above distinctive design. b) Furthermore, the presence and absence of specks in the respective circles will also denote to the customer that "Lifebuoy" does not have any germicidal property whereas "Dettol" has 100% of these properties. c) Describing "Dettol" to be 10 times more effective will necessarily imply that "Lifebuoy" is 10 times inferior. This is a clear cut case relating to disparagement of goods. 8. c) Describing "Dettol" to be 10 times more effective will necessarily imply that "Lifebuoy" is 10 times inferior. This is a clear cut case relating to disparagement of goods. 8. The law is quite well settled that a person is entitled to laud his product but he is not entitled to denigrate the product of any other person. In other words, he cannot say that the product of his rival is inferior. He can only say that his product is good. (See the decision of Barin Ghosh, J., in Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran & Anr. reported in 1999 PTC (19) 741 and also a decision of Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J., in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited vs. Heinz India Private Limited & Ors. reported in 2007 (2) CHN page 46). Comparative advertisements are also discouraged by our Courts. There are many decisions to that effect which I need not cite at this stage. 9. On scrutiny of this advertisement, I agree with Mr. Sarkar, that considering the above registered design that an ordinary and prudent customer will identity the red soap with the "Lifebuoy" soap manufactured by the plaintiff. Furthermore, considering the proclamation that "Dettol" is 10 times more effective than "Lifebuoy" and the two circles, one with specks and one without it, which, in my view, will certainly convey to the said customer that "Dettol" has 100% germicidal properties which are absent in "Lifebuoy", I am of the opinion that prima facie this part of the advertisement is offending. It tends to denigrate "Lifebuoy." 10. Therefore, I pass an interim order that the top left hand frame at page 37 of the advertisement which is depicted at pages 36 & 37 be immediately deleted by the defendant. However, the defendant may be permitted to show the advertisement or that part of the advertisement by deleting the red soap therefrom. 11. The interim order will continue till 6th July, 2012, or until further orders whichever is earlier. List this application once again on 2nd July, 2012. 12. Leave is granted to the Advocate on record for the plaintiff to communicate the gist of this order by fax, E-mail or any other swift communication. 13. All parties concerned are to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.