In an internationally competitive commercial enterprise, comparative advertising has a massive effect on client behavior. The comparative commercial and puffing is legally authorized as long as the assessment is sincere and based entirely on verifiable characteristics and not aimed to and/or extends to motive direct or indirect disparagement of competitor’s items and which does now not take unfair gain of or in any way be destructive to the reputation of the competitor’s product. In a case earlier than the Delhi High Court, it turned into an allegation using the plaintiff Horlicks Ltd. (proprietor of Horlicks), that the defendant Heinz India Private Limited (owner of
Company) had posted an advertisement for its Complan-branded product, which disparaged the plaintiff’s fitness food drink product, HORLICKS. The disputed ad compared one cup of COMPLAIN with two cups of HORLICKS and had a disclaimer at the bottom of the page which stated that “One cup of Complan (33g) offers five.94g of protein while two cups of Horlicks (27*2=54g) gives five.94g of protein foundation endorsed percent dosage”.
Plaintiff’s problem with the disclaimer turned into that it turned into now not an imperative part of the advertisement. It was incorrect to the kingdom that the quantity of protein within the defendant’s product was double the amount of protein in the plaintiffs’ product, as the serving size of COMPLAIN had been manipulated to have double the protein of HORLICKS. It was alleged by the Plaintiff that the use of equal-sized cups inside the commercial was wrong. The visibility of 1 cup of COMPLAIN being equivalent to two cups of HORLICKS changed into attracting the maximum customer interest.
It was contended that the impugned advertisement overemphasized the advantages of protein and, by evaluating the handiest one ingredient, I., protein, seeks to misguide customers into believing that consumption of the defendant’s product immediately results in growth. Responding to Plaintiff’s argument that the disclaimer now no being a necessary part of the commercial, Defendant undertook to publish the modified commercial simply depicting the disclaimer in the future. It changed into submitted with the aid of the Defendant that the advertisement of the defendant gave a visible evaluation of the protein content for every product based entirely
on the respective encouraged ‘in step with serving’ length. The encouraged serving size of 33 grams for the defendant’s product had not been altered since the year 193. Therefore, evaluating the protein content for every product based on the recommended ‘in step with serving’ was the maximum accurate, authentic, and valid contrast method. It is argued that the cause of the impugned advertisement was to train the consumers about the protein content of each of the products, and the
advertisement became neither disparaging nor defamatory but provided a correct, real, verifiable, and consistent contrast to the clients. The court, after hearing the parties, held that “consistent with serving‟ length is a prudent industry exercise, as in the absence of such practice, a client might also drink the events’ product in excess and jeopardize his fitness. The courtroom opined that the commercial published via Complan compares a fabric, relevant, verifiable, and consultative feature of the goods in question, that is, protein content, one of the necessary additives of a health drink. The court docket held that comparing each of the products in protein content is factually real and not deceptive. For the reason of evaluation, the courtroom held that the defendant isn’t
obliged to compare all parameters and the advertiser can spotlight a unique characteristic/function of their product, which could set their product apart from their competitors and make a comparison with different merchandise, as long as it’s authentic. Ultimately, it was held that Complan’s advertisement is not misleading. There’s no denigration or disparagement of HORLICKS because the thing compared is a material, appropriate, verifiable, and representative function. The judgment appears to be consistent with the prison precept, which allows comparative commercial and puffing if the comparison is made on valid and crucial service.
