Bar&Bench News Network
Hindustan Unilever’s (HUL) Rin advertisement that compares itself with Procter & Gamble’s (P&G) Tide Naturals has attracted sufficient attention. The advertisement campaign has brought back the focus on comparative advertising which has been ammunition for many a corporate battle. Whilst providing entertainment for many, the courts have not been too kind.
The commercial, launched towards the end of February, openly compares Rin and Tide Naturals, and claims that the former to be a superior product. Yesterday, P&G moved the Calcutta High Court accusing Unilever’s advertisement as disparaging.
On Monday, a Single Bench Madras High Court comprising Justice Ramasubramanian passed an order directing P&G to make modifications to the Tide advert to clarify that the product does not contain lemon or sandalwood as it had claimed. The order was vacated after Tide modified the advertisement. Satish Parasaran is representing Hindustan Unilever, while P.R. Raman is appearing for the P&G in the Madras High Court in the related matter. Amarchand Mangaldas’ Shardul Shroff is representing HUL in its suit against P&G in the Calcutta High Court.
This advertisement has been on the centerstage of the debate on comparative advertising. The debate is whether P&G’s advertisement is disparagement or is a permitted form of free speech protected under the Constitution. Navpreet Panjrath, an attorney with J.Sagar Associates spin off and IP boutique, K&S Partners, in an article published here says, “My view is that any judgement by a court will be critically important when weighing the prospects of successful trade mark infringement action against comparative advertisements”.
The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), the industry watchdog that regulating advertising in the country, will look into the matter on March 24. Market sources inform us that HUL has been under fire ever since small local brands and Tide started to bite into a substantial share of its market. After P&G launched its ‘Tide Naturals’, they have adopted a multipronged approach to stem their losses.
A.A. Mohan, the Managing Partner of AA Mohan Associates told Bar & Bench, “The advertising campaign is not ethical. The courts have till date stopped this unethical form of advertising by passing injuctions. I am sure the case will not be very different here either.”
Calcutta High Court: C.S. 12/2010; Madras High Court: C.S. 189/2010
|
 |
- 1. "I don't think it matters in the least who wins the court battle. This was the first thought I had when I saw this ad for the first time. It was launched just before a weekend - very smart - and it ran over and over again in every possible channel, including regional channels. An injunction at this point is moot......HUL's objective has been achieved :-)". VJ, Bangalore
- 2. "I beg to differ Mr. VJ, HUL may have to pay for what they call comparative advertising, for comparative advertising is allowed but not at the cost of disparagement of competitor's goods. HUL can claim that RIN is better but Indian law will not allow it to say that Tide is bad.". Deepali, Bangalore
- 3. "Deepali, fair point. Sure they may have to pay. But the point really is that the costs of any such payment (to go by past experience in India) would be far far lower than the benefits reaped by HUL in that period. Which is why interim injunctions in India mean way more than eventually winning a suit. P". VJ, Bangalore
- 4. "winning the case is no more important for HUL,as they have already made a dent in P". Aparna, Lucknow
Other News
- End of Venture Capital Fund Regulations; SEBI notifies Alternate Investment Fund Regulations
- SILF supports Nariman for President of India; Says no one knows the working of the Constitution better
- Re-Upped Round up May 22
- Supreme Court Lawyers Welfare Trust encourages young talent; Introduces 2 annual fellowships
- Re-Upped Round up May 21
- Clasis Law moves to a larger office space in Delhi
- Re-Upped Round up May 18
The Viewpoint: Indemnification Provisions - Is the fight on the indemnity clause worth the effort?
May 17, 2012 | Bar & Bench brings to you the twentieth article on 'The Viewpoint' series with its Knowledge Partner AZB & Partners. AZB Senior Associate Nandish Vyas and Associate Pranati Ishwar in this article seek to examine the context in which indemnification rights are relevant for acquisition transactions, and also seek to explore if there are areas where they are potentially not worth the comments (4)
Webmasters: AIKYA