Bombay High Court grants interim relief to HUL in suit filed over Ensure ad disparaging Horlicks

The Bombay High Court on Thursday granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), owner of Horlicks, in a suit alleging that Abbott Laboratories unfairly disparaged its product in an advertisement for Ensure Diabetes Care. [Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Abbott Laboratories & Ors]

While temporarily injuncting Abbott from slandering the Horlicks Diabetes Plus drink, Justice RI Chagla said,

“Unless reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm/injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.”

The Court found that the advertisement prima facie denigrates and disparages HUL's product, and that Abbott had not acted on HUL’s request to withdraw the advertisement.

Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, Abbott has been restrained from circulating, sharing, broadcasting, or otherwise communicating the advertisement on all platforms.

Additionally, Abbott has been temporarily restrained from disparaging or denigrating HUL’s product, either directly or indirectly. The Court also ordered Abbott to recall, delete or take down the advertisement from all platforms.

HUL first spotted the advertisement on August 23 this year through a pharmacist’s WhatsApp status. The 27-second advertisement featured a female protagonist dressed as an industry expert, who was depicted pushing aside Horlicks Diabetes Plus (blurred in the ad) and replacing it with Ensure Diabetes Care. The ad’s commentary suggested that Ensure Diabetes Care was superior, thereby casting Horlicks Diabetes Plus in a negative light.

HUL's legal team had earlier reached out to Abbott through WhatsApp and email, requesting an immediate withdrawal of the advertisement.

Despite these efforts, Abbott failed to address HUL’s concerns or take down the advertisement. This lack of response prompted HUL to move the High Court.

Advocate Hiren Kamod, appearing for HUL, argued that the advertisement was misleading and damaging. He stated that the advertisement deliberately showed the plaintiff’s product in negative light. He claimed that despite the blurring, the plaintiff’s product could be easily identified and it created a negative impression that Horlicks Diabetes Plus was not effective.

The Court agreed with these arguments, stating,

"...although a tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be the best in the world or to say that his product is better than his competitors, however, while doing so he cannot directly or indirectly say that the goods of his competitors are bad or inferior and if he does so then he really slanders the goods of his competitors and defames his competitors and their goods which is not permissible."

The matter will be heard again on October 7.

Advocates Hiren Kamod, along with Advocates Nidhish Mehrotra, Rahul Dhote, Gautam Panchal, Shwetank Tripathi, Vidit Desai, Dishita Shah, Radhika Mehta and Prem Khullar of ANM Global appeared for HUL.

[Read order]