Comparative Advertising

I read with interest Latha’s post published yesterday on why the ‘Bearded Chokra’ would be liable for disparagement even under the ‘actual malice’ standard. Needless to say, I disagree because it is an incorrect understanding of the ‘actual malice’ standard that undermines the essence of the fundamental right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and goes against one of the core values that have sustained SpicyIP since its inception. I am yet to find an instance in our young history

This is a rejoinder to Prashant’s recent post, replying to my post on the order of the Division Bench (DB) of the Bombay High Court in the Marico disparagement case. My post was primarily to point out the factual errors committed by the DB in arriving at its conclusions – not on Marico’s legal strategy, as Prashant has stated in his post. Now that Prashant has raised the important point of free speech, let me express my views on that

Over the last decade, after witnessing Shamnad getting sued for alleged defamation by a pharmaceutical company and Aparajita Lath getting a legal notice for alleged defamation from a leading media house (Shamnad’s brilliant response is over here), I have developed quite a fondness for the fundamental right to free speech and defendants in defamation cases filed by corporations. In this backdrop, I feel compelled to reply to Latha’s spirited defense of Marico’s legal strategy in its lawsuit against ‘Bearded Chokra’