New Delhi: Relief to Pan Masala Company, a Delhi Court has noticed by paying attention to the Directorate General of Health (DGHS) for allegedly indulging in a replacement or indirect tobacco advertisement that violates the law.
While allowing companies to carry out their advertising campaigns, additional sessions of Judge Rajinder Singh say that even though cigarettes and other tobacco actions (COTPA) prohibit the look, advertisements and sale of tobacco products, there is no specific ban on replacement advertisements.
The judge said that Gutka sales were prohibited and in such circumstances, there was no reason for companies to enjoy replacement advertisements to promote products that cannot be sold in the country.
DGHS claimed that in 2005, the rules were set to ban tobacco product advertisements but the company conducted a replacement advertising campaign where the product ‘Dilbagh Pan Masala’ was advertised to promote tobacco products under the brand name ‘Dilbagh’.
The Directorate has issued a notification to the company on April 25, 2018, by saying that he has installed a hoarding containing indirect advertising as a promotion of tobacco products in Delhi’s Dabri Flyover in 2018 to attract young people to trap them in tobacco habits, which violate the actions of COTP.
The Ministry of Health said that ‘Dilbagh’ is a registered trademark for various tobacco products.
This trademark is also registered to chew tobacco, Zarda, etc., it states, adding that “brand name tobacco products cannot be used for other products.” The company engaged in Pan Masala’s sales business from the brand name ‘Dilbagh’, said that the ad did not violate any law.
He claimed that PAN Masala was 100 percent free tobacco and that only Pan Masala had tobacco borne by the COTP law.
It was also looking for damage to Rs 5,00,000.
The judge, while providing interim assistance to Pan Masala Company, said the DGHS did not claim that ‘Dilbagh Pan Masala’ contains tobacco, nicotine, or other prohibited substances.
“It can be summarized that the meaningful products are unexpected to contain tobacco or other prohibited substances.
Gutka sales are prohibited throughout the country.
There is no reason or opportunity for the Plaintiff to advertise tobacco products through ‘indirect advertisements’.
Thus, the Plaintiff has a prime case of facie , “he said.
The judge ordered, “ImpuGned Notification on April 25, 2018, below Part 5 COTPA Law remains until the final disposal of a suit.
The Plaintiff can carry out the ad campaign in connection with the product in question until the final disposal of a suit.” He said that if the ad for the product was meant Stopped during this suit, it will cause loss of income and goodwill that cannot be repaired.