Defamation of goods — Trade disparagement — Injury to goodwill — Essential requirements In an action alleging defamation of goods or trade disparagement, plaintiff must establish that the impugned advertisement conveys a false and derogatory representation concerning the plaintiff’s product, having a tendency to lower its commercial reputation or goodwill in the estimation of an average consumer — Mere comparative promotion or praise of advertiser’s product does not amount to defamation. [Paras 29–31, 37–44, 51]

Defamation of Goods / Goodwill & Reputation — Comparative Advertising)

---

Defamation of goods — Trade disparagement — Injury to goodwill — Essential requirements

In an action alleging defamation of goods or trade disparagement, plaintiff must establish that the impugned advertisement conveys a false and derogatory representation concerning the plaintiff’s product, having a tendency to lower its commercial reputation or goodwill in the estimation of an average consumer — Mere comparative promotion or praise of advertiser’s product does not amount to defamation.
[Paras 29–31, 37–44, 51]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Comparative advertising — Puffery distinguished

Puffery and exaggerated claims promoting advertiser’s product, even if untrue, are permissible — However, comparative advertising becomes actionable when it “rubbishes”, ridicules or portrays the rival product as inferior, harmful or undesirable, thereby injuring its goodwill — Absence of such derogatory tendency negatives defamation.
[Paras 37–44, 51]

---

Defamation of goods — Identification of rival product — Not decisive by itself

Identification of rival product is relevant but not the sole test — Even indirect reference may suffice if advertisement conveys a clear derogatory message affecting goodwill — Where advertisement does not inevitably lead consumers to believe that plaintiff’s product is bad or harmful, claim of defamation fails.
[Paras 54–57, 62–64]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Visual depiction — Overall impression test

Impugned advertisement must be viewed as a whole from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection — Fleeting visuals or generic depictions (such as stubble or skin tone) which do not clearly convey inferiority or harmfulness of rival product do not constitute actionable defamation of goodwill.
[Paras 51, 62–64]

---

Defamation of goods — Quantified superiority claims — Tendency to injure goodwill

Quantified claims of superiority (e.g., “up to two times smoother”) imply measurable inferiority of competing products — In absence of objective and neutral substantiation, such claims may have a tendency to injure goodwill of rival goods and justify limited injunctive relief — Relief may be tailored rather than absolute.
[Paras 59–61, 65(b)]

---

Defamation of goodwill — Proof — Interim stage

At interlocutory stage, plaintiff is not required to prove actual loss — It is sufficient to show that the impugned representation has a prima facie tendency to damage goodwill — Where such tendency is speculative or remote, injunction is not warranted.
[Paras 51, 63–64]

---

Commercial speech — Defamation of goods — Constitutional balance

Comparative advertising forms part of protected commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) — Such protection is lost only when advertisement is false, misleading or defamatory of rival’s goods — Courts must balance freedom of commercial expression with protection of commercial reputation.
[Paras 36–38, 47–50]

---

Ratio (Defamation / Goodwill )

Comparative advertising does not amount to defamation of goodwill unless the impugned representation, read as a whole, conveys a false and derogatory message lowering the commercial reputation of the rival product. Mere promotion, puffery or generic comparison, without such tendency, is not actionable as defamation of goods.

Defamation — Unauthorized biography — Temporary injunction — Scope at interlocutory stage Suit seeking restraint on publication and circulation of an unauthorized biography alleging false and defamatory imputations against a public figure — Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining publication and sale — Appellate Court vacated injunction — High Court examined correctness in supervisory jurisdiction. [Paras 1–7]

Defamation — Unauthorized biography — Temporary injunction — Scope at interlocutory stage

Suit seeking restraint on publication and circulation of an unauthorized biography alleging false and defamatory imputations against a public figure — Trial Court granted interim injunction restraining publication and sale — Appellate Court vacated injunction — High Court examined correctness in supervisory jurisdiction.
[Paras 1–7]

---

Freedom of speech and expression — Article 19(1)(a) — Right to reputation — Article 21 — Balancing of rights

Right to reputation is part of right to life under Article 21 — Freedom of speech and expression includes right to publish biographies of public figures — At interlocutory stage, Court must carefully balance competing constitutional values — Prior restraint to be granted only in exceptional cases.
[Paras 6, 31–35]

---

Defamation — Public figures — Higher threshold

Public figures are subject to greater degree of public scrutiny — Critical writing, fair comment, and investigative journalism cannot be interdicted merely because it is uncomfortable or unpalatable — Plaintiff must establish clear prima facie falsity and malice to justify prior restraint.
[Paras 31–35]

---

Unauthorized biography — Consent — Not mandatory

Writing and publication of biography of a public figure without consent per se not illegal — Consent not a prerequisite where contents are based on public records, published material, interviews, and journalistic sources — Absence of consent alone cannot justify injunction.
[Paras 22–24, 31–33]

---

Defamation — Book to be read as a whole

Allegedly defamatory work must be read as a whole — Isolated passages cannot be torn out of context at interim stage to impose blanket restraint — Determination of truth, falsity, and malice requires trial.
[Paras 31–35]

---

Temporary injunction — Prior restraint on publication — Principles

Courts must exercise extreme caution before granting injunction restraining publication — Interim gag orders have chilling effect on free speech — Unless publication is ex facie defamatory and irreparable injury is clearly established, injunction should not operate.
[Paras 6, 31–35]

---

Supervisory jurisdiction — Article 227 — Limited interference

High Court does not act as appellate court — Interference warranted only where subordinate court acts perversely or ignores settled principles — Appellate Court’s order vacating injunction did not warrant supervisory interference.
[Paras 6–7]

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

1. Nature of Proceedings

The petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged appellate orders dated 28-04-2018 by which interim injunctions restraining publication and sale of the book “Godman to Tycoon: The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev” were vacated.
[Paras 1–7]

---

2. Plaintiff’s Allegations

The petitioner alleged that the book:

• was an unauthorized biography,

• contained false, malicious and defamatory imputations,

• violated his right to reputation and privacy under Article 21, and

• relied on unverified interviews, media reports and online material.
  [Paras 8–30]

---

3. Defence of Author and Publisher

The author and publisher contended that:

• the book was a work of investigative journalism,

• it relied on public records, published media reports and interviews,

• substantial material was already in public domain, and

• the petitioner, being a public figure, could not seek prior restraint on publication.
  [Paras 31–35]

---

4. Approach to Interim Injunction in Defamation

The High Court reiterated settled law that:

• injunction against publication is an exceptional remedy,

• prior restraint affects not only author and publisher but also public’s right to know, and

• at interlocutory stage, court cannot conduct a mini-trial on truth or falsity.
  [Paras 6, 31–35]

---

5. Public Figure Doctrine

The Court emphasised that the petitioner:

• projected himself as a public figure with nationwide and global following,

• actively participated in public discourse, politics, business and media, and

• must tolerate a higher level of criticism than a private individual.
  [Paras 31–35]

---

6. Unauthorized Biography and Consent

The Court rejected the premise that lack of consent vitiates publication, holding that biographies of public figures can be written without consent, subject to law of defamation being tested at trial.
[Paras 22–24, 31–33]

---

7. Reading the Book as a Whole

The Court accepted the submission that:

• the book must be read holistically,

• isolated passages cannot justify blanket ban, and

• adjudication of defamatory character requires full evidence.
  [Paras 31–35]

---

8. Final Determination

The High Court declined to interfere with the appellate orders vacating the injunction, holding that:

• no case of exceptional prior restraint was made out, and

• issues of truth, malice and defamation must be decided at trial.
  [Paras 6–7]

---

Ratio Decidendi

At the interlocutory stage, courts must exercise extreme restraint in granting injunctions restraining publication of books, particularly concerning public figures. Unauthorized biographies are not per se illegal, and unless the publication is ex facie defamatory, prior restraint violates the balance between Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21. Alleged defamation must ordinarily be adjudicated after trial.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Defamation — Civil damages — Allegedly defamatory ...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Defamation — Civil damages — Allegedly defamatory ...: advocatemmmohan Defamation — Civil damages — Allegedly defamatory emails and social-media posts — Truth and fair comment Emails and Facebook...

Defamation — Civil damages — Allegedly defamatory emails and social-media posts — Truth and fair comment

Emails and Facebook posts sent by defendants alleging non-payment of dues by plaintiff-company — Evidence showed subsisting outstanding amounts payable by plaintiff — Plaintiff failed to plead or prove that allegations were false — Statements relating to recovery of genuine dues constitute truth / fair comment — Not defamatory.
[Paras 44–45, 47]

---

Defamation — Burden of proof — False imputation

In suit for damages for defamation, initial burden lies on plaintiff to establish falsity of statements and injury to reputation — Mere allegation of reputational loss insufficient — Where plaintiff fails to deny existence of dues, defamatory intent not made out.
[Paras 15, 44–47]

---

Defamation — Complaints and communications to clients — Actionability

Communications made by defendants to authorities and clients complaining of non-payment and alleged misconduct — When founded on grievance of unpaid dues and not shown to be false, such communications do not amount to actionable defamation.
[Paras 39–45]

---

Defamation — Defences — Truth and fair comment

Truth is a complete defence — Fair comment on matters arising from contractual disputes protected — Plaintiff must dislodge defence by proving falsity — Failure to do so fatal to claim.
[Paras 38, 44–45]

---

Evidence — Effect of defendants not filing written statement

Even where defendants fail to file written statement or cross-examine witnesses, plaintiff must independently discharge burden of proof — Non-traverse by defendants does not relieve plaintiff of obligation to prove falsity and defamation.
[Paras 47]

---

Defamation — Liability of multiple defendants — Proof against each

Vague allegation that one defendant “joined hands” with another — No specific defamatory act attributed — Claim against such defendant not maintainable.
[Para 46]

---

Appeal — Findings of fact — Interference

Single Judge’s findings based on pleadings, emails and admissions — No perversity or legal error — Appellate court declined interference — Appeal dismissed.
[Paras 44–48]

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

1. Nature of Proceedings

The appeal challenged the judgment dated 29-10-2018 dismissing the appellant-company’s suit seeking ₹3 crores as damages for alleged loss of reputation caused by emails and social-media posts issued by the respondents.
[Paras 1, 16] 

2. Plaintiff’s Case

The appellant claimed that the respondents, who were engaged as coordinators under MoUs dated 12-03-2015 and 07-08-2015, circulated defamatory emails (notably dated 16-07-2016) and Facebook posts accusing the appellant of fraud, bribery and non-payment, resulting in loss of goodwill and business.
[Paras 2–9, 23] 

---

3. Defence Stand

The respondents’ consistent stand, evident from emails and messages on record, was that substantial amounts (about ₹12–15 lakhs) were outstanding and unpaid, compelling them to raise grievances with authorities and clients.
[Paras 39–42] 

---

4. Core Issue Before the Court

Whether the impugned emails and social-media posts amounted to false and defamatory imputations, or whether they were truthful grievances / fair comment regarding unpaid dues.
[Paras 23–24, 44]

---

5. Appreciation of Evidence

The Court closely examined:

• the email dated 16-07-2016 addressed to NSDC and clients;

• subsequent text messages exchanged between respondent No.1 and the appellant’s Director;

• Facebook posts dated 10-08-2016 and 16-08-2016.

From these, the Court found that the consistent demand for payment of dues was evident and never specifically denied by the appellant in pleadings or evidence.
[Paras 39–44] 

---

6. Failure to Prove Falsity

A decisive factor was that:

• the appellant did not plead or prove that no amount was due;

• reliance on MoU clauses (payment contingent on client payments) did not absolve appellant from establishing that the respondents’ assertions were false.

Hence, the basic requirement of falsity — essential to defamation — was not met.
[Paras 44–45, 47] 

---

7. Application of Defamation Law

Relying on settled principles (truth, fair comment, privilege), the Court held that:

• statements made to recover allegedly due amounts, if not shown to be false, are protected;

• raising grievances, even in strong language, does not per se constitute defamation.

Accordingly, no actionable defamation was established.
[Paras 38, 44–45]

---

8. Claim Against Respondent No.2

The Court noted absence of specific allegations or evidence showing defamatory acts by respondent No.2. A bald plea of “joining hands” was insufficient to fasten liability.
[Para 46]

---

9. Effect of Non-filing of Written Statement

The Court rejected the argument that absence of written statement or cross-examination automatically entitled the plaintiff to a decree, reiterating that initial burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff.
[Para 47]

---

10. Final Decision

Finding no infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal.
[Para 48] 

---

Ratio Decidendi

In a civil action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the impugned statements are false and defamatory. Where communications complaining of non-payment of dues are not shown to be false, and the plaintiff fails to deny the existence of such dues, the defences of truth and fair comment apply, and no damages for defamation can be awarded.

Trade mark infringement — Registration — Not absolute Registration under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 / Trade Marks Act, 1999 confers statutory rights subject to limitations — Registration does not defeat superior rights of prior user — Trial Court justified in declining relief for infringement despite registration. [Paras 16, 26–28]

 Trade Marks — Prior user — Section 34, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — Scope

Registered proprietor not entitled to restrain honest prior user — Evidence established that defendants commenced use of mark “Mountain Dew” for packaged drinking water in India from year 2000 — Plaintiffs commenced use in India only in January 2003 — Prior user rights protected notwithstanding registration in favour of plaintiffs — Injunction rightly refused.
[Paras 16, 23–26]

---

Trade mark infringement — Registration — Not absolute

Registration under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 / Trade Marks Act, 1999 confers statutory rights subject to limitations — Registration does not defeat superior rights of prior user — Trial Court justified in declining relief for infringement despite registration.
[Paras 16, 26–28]

---

Passing off — Prior user — Honest concurrent use

Defendants established continuous and bona fide use of mark “Mountain Dew” in relation to packaged drinking water — Plaintiffs failed to prove dishonest adoption by defendants — Passing-off action by registered proprietor not maintainable against prior user.
[Paras 16–17, 25–26]

---

Trans-border reputation — Proof — Insufficiency

Global reputation of mark not sufficient — Plaintiffs failed to establish spill-over reputation in India prior to defendants’ adoption in 2000 — Mere foreign advertisements and reputation abroad insufficient to dislodge established Indian prior use.
[Paras 16, 18–19, 23]

---

Trade mark — Allied and cognate goods — Distinction

Plaintiffs’ product “Mountain Dew” was carbonated soft drink — Defendants’ product was packaged drinking water — Plaintiffs marketed packaged water under different mark “Aquafina” — Likelihood of confusion not established.
[Paras 16, 23–24]

---

Copyright — Label and colour scheme — No infringement

Use of blue and white colour scheme and mountain device insufficient to constitute copyright infringement — Overall dissimilarity in labels — No copying of original artistic work proved.
[Paras 16, 26]

---

Damages — Trade mark infringement / passing off / defamation — Proof

Claims for damages require strict proof — Plaintiffs failed to establish loss or wrongful gain — Defendants’ claim for damages based on alleged defamatory newspaper publications also not proved — Damages rightly refused on both sides.
[Paras 17, 20]

---

Cross-objections — Inconsistent pleas — Effect

Defendants having succeeded on prior user defence could not simultaneously claim injunction against plaintiffs for passing off — Trial Court correct in refusing injunction in defendants’ suit — Cross-objections dismissed.
[Paras 17, 20]

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

1. Nature of Proceedings

The appeals and cross-objections arose out of O.S. No.95 of 2004 (filed by PepsiCo for infringement, passing off and damages) and O.S. No.19 of 2004 (filed by Magfast Beverages for injunction and damages). Both suits were dismissed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 31-12-2019, leading to the present appeals.
[Paras 2–6]

---

2. Plaintiffs’ Case (PepsiCo)

PepsiCo asserted that:

• “Mountain Dew” was adopted in 1940 and registered in India from 1985;

• the mark enjoyed worldwide and trans-border reputation;

• defendants’ packaged drinking water under identical mark caused infringement, passing off, dilution and unfair competition.
  [Paras 7–7.11] 

---

3. Defendants’ Case (Magfast Beverages)

Defendants pleaded that:

• they commenced manufacture and sale of packaged drinking water under mark “Mountain Dew” in 2000;

• PepsiCo introduced “Mountain Dew” in India only in January 2003;

• plaintiffs never used “Mountain Dew” for packaged drinking water and sold such product under “Aquafina”;

• defendants were honest and prior users entitled to protection under Section 34.
  [Paras 11–11.5] 

---

4. Findings on Prior User

The Division Bench upheld the Trial Court’s finding that:

• defendants proved earlier commercial use of “Mountain Dew” in India;

• plaintiffs’ Indian registration could not defeat prior user rights;

• Section 34 squarely protected defendants.
  [Paras 16, 23–26] 

---

5. Registration and Infringement

The Court reiterated that:

• registration is prima facie evidence of validity;

• however, statutory rights are subject to limitations including prior use;

• hence, plaintiffs were not entitled to injunction for infringement.
  [Paras 26–28] 

---

6. Passing Off and Confusion

The Court found that:

• plaintiffs’ water product was sold under “Aquafina”, not “Mountain Dew”;

• defendants’ packaged water had independent market presence;

• likelihood of deception or confusion was not proved.
  [Paras 16, 23–24] 

---

7. Trans-border Reputation

While acknowledging global reputation, the Court held that:

• plaintiffs failed to prove reputation in India prior to 2000;

• spill-over reputation could not override proven Indian prior use.
  [Paras 16, 18–19] 

---

8. Damages and Defamation

Both sides claimed damages. The Court held that:

• no cogent proof of loss or wrongful gain was adduced;

• newspaper publications did not establish actionable defamation;

• refusal of damages to both parties was justified.
  [Paras 17, 20] 

---

9. Final Outcome

• CCCA Nos.20 & 21 of 2021 filed by PepsiCo were dismissed;

• Cross Objections No.32 of 2021 filed by Magfast Beverages were dismissed;

• Trial Court’s judgment dismissing both suits was affirmed.
  [Paras 17, 20, 26] 

---

Ratio Decidendi

Even a registered proprietor of a trade mark cannot restrain an honest prior user. Registration does not extinguish prior user rights under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and trans-border reputation cannot prevail over established Indian prior use. Claims for infringement, passing off and damages must fail in absence of proof of deception, dishonest adoption or loss.

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — St...

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — St...: advocatemmmohan Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — Striking off pleadings — Scope at pre-registration stage Before numbering of...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI Rule 16 — Striking off pleadings — Scope at pre-registration stage

Before numbering of suit, Court cannot mechanically direct striking off of pleadings as “irrelevant” unless they are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious — Narration of background facts forming part of cause of action cannot be treated as irrelevant — Objection that only certain paragraphs are relevant held factually incorrect.
[Paras 9–10]

---

Civil Procedure — Return of plaint — Improper exercise of jurisdiction

Return of plaint without considering explanation offered by plaintiff amounts to non-application of mind — Repeated return of plaint on same objections, despite clarification, unsustainable — Such return interferable under Article 227.
[Paras 8, 11]

---

Defamation — Pleadings — Matrimonial proceedings

Allegations made in matrimonial pleadings can constitute cause of action for defamation — Suit for damages need not await outcome of matrimonial proceedings — Office objection to maintainability on that ground untenable.
[Para 4]

---

Order VI Rule 16 CPC — Discretion — Limits

Power to strike out pleadings is discretionary and must be exercised sparingly — Court cannot compel plaintiff to delete pleadings merely because it considers them excessive or unnecessary at threshold — Matter to be examined during trial.
[Paras 5, 10]

---

Attestation of plaint — Execution abroad — Competent authority

Plaint executed abroad and attested by practising solicitor in United Kingdom — Solicitors in England and Wales are Commissioners for Oaths — Such attestation is valid — Objection on competency of attestation not sustainable.
[Paras 6, 11]

---

Supervisory jurisdiction — Article 227, Constitution of India

High Court justified in interfering where trial Court refuses to number plaint on erroneous factual assumptions and hyper-technical objections — Direction to number suit issued.
[Paras 8, 11]

---

ANALYSIS OF LAW AND FACTS

1. Nature of Proceedings

The Civil Revision Petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 08-07-2025 and 28-07-2025, by which the Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda repeatedly returned the plaint in O.S.(SR) No.4019 of 2025 without numbering the suit.
[Paras 1–2, 8]

---

2. Background Facts

The petitioner/plaintiff is the wife of the respondent/defendant. Marriage was solemnised on 02-09-2023. The respondent filed FCOP No.404 of 2024 seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty, making serious allegations including illicit relationship. Alleging harassment and defamatory allegations, the petitioner instituted a civil suit for damages of ₹1 crore.
[Paras 3–4]

---

3. Objections Raised by Trial Court

The trial Court raised objections including:

• only paragraphs 24 and 25 of the plaint were relevant;

• other pleadings were irrelevant and liable to be struck off under Order VI Rule 16 CPC;

• clarification required regarding attestation of plaint signed in the U.K.
  [Paras 4–5]

---

4. Explanation Offered by Plaintiff

The plaintiff resubmitted the plaint explaining that:

• all paragraphs formed a continuous and connected narrative;

• striking off pleadings would destroy continuity of cause of action;

• attestation was done by Srinivasa Reddy Tadvai, a practising solicitor in England and Wales, who is statutorily a Commissioner for Oaths and competent to attest signatures.
  [Para 6]

---

5. Error in Trial Court’s Approach

Despite detailed explanation, the trial Court again returned the plaint stating that objections were not complied with, without examining the explanation. The High Court held this to be a clear case of non-application of mind.
[Paras 7–8]

---

6. Findings on “Irrelevant Pleadings”

On perusal of the plaint, the High Court found that:

• paragraphs narrating relationship, marriage, dowry talks, transfer of respondent, matrimonial dispute and divorce petition were all foundational facts;

• the observation that only paras 24 and 25 were relevant was factually incorrect;

• such pleadings could not be struck off at threshold.
  [Paras 9–10]

---

7. Order VI Rule 16 — Improper Invocation

The Court reiterated that Order VI Rule 16 CPC:

• cannot be used to rewrite plaint at pre-registration stage;

• discretion must be exercised cautiously;

• relevance of pleadings is a matter for trial.
  [Paras 5, 10]

---

8. Attestation Abroad

The High Court accepted the explanation regarding attestation in the U.K. and held that a practising solicitor in England and Wales is competent to attest signatures, and therefore the objection lacked merit.
[Paras 6, 11]

---

9. Final Directions

The Civil Revision Petition was allowed.
The impugned order dated 28-07-2025 was set aside.
The Principal District Judge, Hanumakonda was directed to number the suit if otherwise in order, without insisting on deletion of pleadings, and to dispose of the suit on merits.
[Para 11]

---

Ratio Decidendi

A plaint cannot be repeatedly returned or refused numbering on the ground that only certain paragraphs are “relevant”. Background and narrative pleadings forming part of cause of action cannot be struck off at threshold under Order VI Rule 16 CPC, and attestation of plaint executed abroad by a practising solicitor in the U.K. is valid. Repeated return of plaint without considering explanation warrants supervisory interference under Article 227