Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd vs Gillete India Ltd on 6 June, 2016

2. The appellant has challenged the order dated 1st June, 2016
whereby the limited interim order was passed restraining the
appellant from showing in its impugned advertisement the razors in
the same blue colour of the respondent or any blue colour which is
deceptively similar to the blue colour of the plaintiff/respondent’s

3. The other interim order against the appellant is that it is
restrained from claiming in its impugned advertisement that the hair
removal by using appellant/defendant’s cream is twice as good as
when compared to hair removal by a razor.

FAO (OS) 185/2016 Page 1 of 5
4. As a matter of fact, the respondent filed the suit for mandatory
permanent injunction and damages for disparagment and unfair
trade practices. The suit and interim application first time were
listed on 20th May, 2016. The appellant/defendant also appeared
before the Court. After recording certain submissions, the time was
granted to the appellant to file the reply. No interim order was

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply