In an earlier post, I had discussed the Madras High Court judgment in Colgate Palmolive v. Anchor, where the Court adopted a new approach to the issue of comparative advertising. The judgment is important for one more reason. It appears to hold that in order to issue a temporary injunction, the Court need not always look at whether the plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury.
The relevant paragraph in the judgment is as follows:
74. Therefore, on the analogy of the same principle, this Court is also competent to issue appropriate interim orders, in the light of the finding that the respondent is guilty of unfair trade practice, by projecting their product as the only product containing 3 ingredients and as the first product to provide all round protection. Even by their own admission, the claim of the respondent as being the ONLY and FIRST toothpaste is not intended to convey the meaning that it does. Therefore the plaintiffs have a prima facie case. Since it is in public interest not to permit the respondent to continue with such a misleading claim, the balance of convenience is not in favour of the respondent. Applying the test laid down in para 24 (vii) of the decision of the Apex Court in Colgate Palmolive case, it is clear that when public interest is involved, the question of allowing the wrong to continue on the ground that it can be adequately compensated in terms of money, does not arise.
Thus, it appears that in the view of the High Court, a finding of irreparable injury is not necessary if the public interest is being violated. Typically, the plaintiff must necessarily show irreparable injury before he is granted a temporary injunction. It remains to be seen whether the view of the