MONOPOLIES AND RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION, NEW DELHI 

C. BADRINATH BABU, Advocate for the DG(I & R). 

M. HARAVU, Advocate, for applicant/informant. 

H. D. PITHAWALLA, Advocate, DR. V. K. AGGARWAL and RUBY AHUJA, Advocate, as instructed by KARANJAWALLA AND COMPANY, Advocates, for the respondent. 

ORDER 

A. N. DIVECHA, J. - The respondent has moved one application under regulation 65 and allied regulations of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 (the regulations for brief framed under section 66 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for discharge of the notice of enquiry in this case on the ground that there is no case of unfair trade practice made out against the respondent in the present proceeding. The applicant/informant has filed no comments on this application despite grant of time for the purpose. The DG has filed its reply affidavit and has contested this application on various grounds. 

2. The applicant/informant had approached this Commission under section 36B of the MRTP Act charging the respondent with adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices within its meaning contained in section 36A thereof qua the TV commercial aired by and on behalf of the respondent for advertising its product by the name of 'Ujala Supreme' as a whitening agent. It also took out an application under section 12A thereof for an interim relief for stoppage of such TV commercial. By an order passed by this Commission on 5 June, 1998, a notice of enquiry as also a notice with respect to the interim relief application came to be issued. Since the application moved by the applicant/informant herein was treated as the information application, the DG was directed to take over the proceeding for conducting it before this Commission. 

3. As aforesaid, the applicant/informant had taken out an interim relief applicant for stay of one TV commercial aired by and on behalf of the respondent for advertising its product by the name of Ujala Supreme as a whitening agent. By an order passed by this Commission on 18 November, 1996, the said interim relief application came to be rejected after its contested hearing. The aforesaid order passed by this Commission has come to be affirmed in appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 

4. It is, however, true that the interim relief application is to be decided on establishment of a prima facie case and on the question of the balance of convenience. While disposing of the aforesaid interim relief application, this Commission has come to the conclusion that the applicant/informant failed to establish its prima facie case for the purpose of such interim relief application. It has specifically been held that there is no material worth the name to show that the word 'Neel' referred to in the aforesaid TV commercial aired by and on behalf of the respondent was likened to the glue made by the respondent by the brand name of 'Robin Blue'. 

5. It is difficult to appreciate the contention urged before us by learned advocate, Shri Badrinath Babu, for the DG, to the effect that Ultramarine Blues, including Robin Blue, are commonly known as Neel and Robin Blue is also known as Robin Neel in the Indian market. The deponent of the affidavit filed by and on behalf of the DG has nowhere given any source of this piece of information. There is no authenticated survey saying that Robin Blue is known as Robin Neel in the Indian market. Even otherwise, the word 'Neel' used in the TV commercial aired by and on behalf of the respondent cannot be equated with Robin Neel even assuming for the sake of argument that Robin Blue is known as Robin Neel in the Indian market. 

6. We do not think that the claim that Ujala Supreme is a whitening agent is invented by and on behalf of the respondent cannot be said to be a misleading statement or misrepresentation in any manner (sic). Even if it is assumed that the formulation of Ujala Supreme contains Insta Violet
Concentrate, that is, acid milling violet, the respondent does not claim that it has invented such ingredient by the name of Insta Violet Concentrate. The formulation used by the respondent is claimed to be its invention, and not any ingredient thereof. There is nothing wrong if the
manufacturer claims invention regarding its formulation and no ingredients. Such claim of invention cannot be styled as misleading or misrepresentation of any factual position. 

7. We are left wondering as to why the DG should try to hold the brief for the applicant/informant by saying that it is designed to disparage the product of the applicant/informant by the name of Robin Blue. As a custodian of public interests, the DG is not to hold brief for any private party, and he has to assist this Commission in an objective manner without any kind of bias or prejudice. No other contention raised in the reply affidavit
merits any consideration. 

8. The Division Bench ruling of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of N. Ganu Bhai v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, MP reported in (1975) 36 STC 421 (MP) is of no assistance to the applicant/informant in support of its contention that Robin Blue is commonly known as 'Neel' for the simple reason that the aforesaid ruling was in the context of interpretation of one entry in the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The observation made regarding Robin Blue commonly known as 'Neel' was just a passing reference. 

9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no useful purpose will be served in carrying the enquiry proceeding to its logical conclusion. To do so would amount to unnecessary consumption or loss of time, stationery and energy of this Commission. We are, therefore,
of the opinion that the notice of enquiry deserves to be discharged. 

10. In the result, the aforesaid application moved by and on behalf of the respondent under regulation 65 and like regulations of the regulations is accepted. The notice of enquiry is accordingly, discharged, however, with no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.