* CASE FACTS:
* Misrepresentation of Product of Other Brands (Vehicle Design and Features), though the Logo has been removed * Rash driving, racing and over-speeding in mountainous terrain is dangerous and is against the motor vehicles regulations * The child is shown sitting in the front seat (which is not recommended for children below 10 years as sudden braking action in a moving car can throw the child forward hitting the front panel and windscreen glass resulting in serious injuries) and is also not wearing a seat-belt (as is evident by moving around the car) * Smoking is injurious to health and doing so with a child in the vehicle is unacceptable.
* PRINCIPLES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:
* Chapter II/III of ASCI code – Multiple Violation of self-regulatory guidelines of ASCI Code – Chapter II and III. * Defamatation and Abuse of Trademark under Trade Marks Act 1999. * Unfair Trade Practices showing other company’s product in bad light is against the MRTP Act, 1969 and Competition Act.
* ADVICE WITH REGARDS TO THE ENFORCEMENT OF ARBITRAL AWARD IN THIS CASE: During the Case Tea Board, India vs ITC Limited on 20 April, 2011, the Kolkata High Court defined unfair Competition as “all acts of such a nature as to create confusion by any means whatsoever with the establishment, the goods or the industrial or commercial activities, of a competitor;”. Hence, disparaging Audi’s and Mercedes Logo is unlawful in nature. Additionally, Delhi High Court in the historical hearing of Reckitt & Coleman Of India Ltd. vs Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. on 1 January, 1800 stated that “A company is not allowed to compare and show that other products are bad so as to promote their own products, thereby cannot defame other products.” A child in the navigator’s seat, racing in hilly terrian and smoking in public place with a child and showing a child move from front seat to the back seat, and not wearing a seat belt while driving the...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document