High Court of Delhi

Gillette India Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd.

MANU/DE/1381/2016

01.06.2016

Media and Communication

Puffery’ by advertiser permitted, so long as it doesn’t misrepresent

Delhi High Court dismissed an application Gillette India against Reckitt Benckiser for airing allegedly disparaging and false television advertisements. In the disputed advertisement, Reckitt compares the superior efficacy of its hair removal cream, ‘Veet’, to an “ordinary razor”, which looks similar to those sold by Gillette.

The court reiterated the guiding principles laid down by the court in determining permissibility of the advertisements: protection of commercial speech; advertisement to not be false, misleading unfair or deceptive, and; allusions in the advertisement glorify ones products and are not construed as serious representations.

Though it dismissed Reckitt’s argument that the razor used in the advertisement was a design dissimilar to Gillette’s, it refused a final ruling for a lack of neutral evidence. Assertions that the advertisement was misleading in its claims were inaccurate and misleading failed to sway the court.

Relevant

Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL & Ors. MANU/SC/0745/1995
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd. MANU/SC/0494/1999

Tags : advertisement comparison commercial speech protected

Share :