II. THE DEFENDANTS ARE NOT GUILTY OF THE TORT OF PRODUCT DISPARAGEMENT.

It is settled law that mere puffing up of your own product is not prohibited by law and
cannot constitute product disparagement.1 It is submitted that in the present case all that
the defendants have attempted through their “Thums Up” Promotional advertisements.
The only intent of the defendants while showing this ad was that their drink should be
known as drinks for grown-ups, thereby they were merely puffing up their own product,
which is permissible. To say it is a children’s drink or it is sweet would not amount to
disparagement. It only conveys that "Peppi" is sweet and sweet things are not preferred
by grown up. Any such campaign is part of the healthy competition between two rival
companies. Such economic battles should be confined to the market place.2

It is also submitted that it is a fundamental principle of law that the plaintiff should come
to the court with clean hands. In fact the plaintiff has been indulging in the same
advertisement war, therefore, is not entitled to any equitable relief. The plaintiff has also
launched an advertisement campaign ridiculing one of the ads made by Coke.

1
Hindustan Lever v. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd., AIR 1998 SC 526 ; Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v.
M.P. Ramchandran and Anr., 1999 PTC (19) 741. Reckitt & Colman of India v. Kiwi TTK Ltd. 1996 (16)
PTC 393.
2
Erven Warnink B.V. and Anr. v. J. Townend & Sons (Hull) Limited and Anr. 1980 RPC 31