Category Archives: Comparative Advertising

Comparative Advertising Trademark

Real Icecream, Real Disparagement: Bombay HC Shuts Down Amul’s Advertisements (Part II)


[In Part I of this post, I had laid out the facts of the case and studied the viability of the claim of generic disparagement under law. I had also looked into one of the primary issues of this case – whether frozen desserts all contain “vanaspati/vanaspati tel.”] One of the contentions raised by Amul was that this was a case of comparative advertisement, which permitted puffery of its products. (Our posts on this subject can be accessed here.) I…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising Trademark

Real Icecream, Real Disparagement: Bombay HC Shuts Down Amul’s Advertisements (Part I)


Earlier this year, Amul found itself strapped in legal trouble when Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) sued them for disparagement. At the root of the dispute, were two advertisements comparing Amul’s “icecreams” to other “frozen desserts” – claiming that the former uses “real milk” while the latter does not. We had covered this over here, when the issue first hit headlines. Last month, a single judge bench of the Bombay High Court passed a comprehensive judgment on the matter (Suit (L)…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising Trademark

Comparative Advertising ― Havells v. Eveready: Who’s the brightest of them all?


As is known, every product has different features/characteristics and advertisers like to highlight only the most advantageous features and consequently remain silent on the weaker aspects of their products. In this regard, the main issue in Havells v. Amritanshu was whether or not an advertisement which compares one product with a similar rival product must necessarily compare all its features in order for it to be an ‘honest’ advertisement. The Delhi High Court held that failure to compare all the…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising Trademark

Guest Post: Honesty in Disparagement – Colgate v. HUL


Spadika brings us her third entry to the SpicyIP Fellowship applicant series in this interesting post where she examines the recent Colgate v. HUL decision on comparative advertisements. You can view her previous posts here. Honesty in Disparagement- The Delhi High Court decision in Colgate v. HUL In a recent decision of the Delhi High Court, the controversial Pepsodent advertisement that compares the Pepsodent Germicheck Powder with Colgate Dental Cream has been held not to be per se disparaging. However, the…


Read More »
Comparative Advertising Trademark

Reckitt v. HUL- the tale of comparative advertising


In the last week of September, the High Court of Calcutta issued a judgment on the issue of comparative advertising in the dispute between  Reckitt Benkiser (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.  This is the third matter between the two parties on the issue of comparative advertising. Our posts on the earlier two matters can be found here and here. The dispute was with respect to four advertisements published by both parties concerned. The first advertisement portrays Dettol Kitchen Gel…


Read More »