In the case of Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P Ramachandran & Anr, it was held that while promoting one’s product, the producer could declare his goods to be the best or even better than that of the competitor even if the statement is not true. But while doing so, he cannot term the competitor bad.
In the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation and Other, the defendant released an advertisement where it suggested that their ice creams are made with real milk and not vanaspati. Hindustan Unilever filed a case accusing Amul of “Generic Disparagement/slander of goods.” The Court restrained the airing of the advertisement and stated that the said advertisement was disparaging as it was looking down upon the products of all competitors, including the applicant’s.
In another case of generic disparagement of Zydus Wellness Product Ltd. vs. Dabur India Ltd which involved an advertisement for orange glucose, whereby it was shown that “Glucoplus – C” is the superior glucose in comparison to other glucose available in the market. While delivering the judgment the Court went through various components to determine generic disparagement such as “whether the competing product in the TVC is that of the plaintiff, assessing the category in which the comparative advertisement will fall in and an assessment of the disparaging element.” When a comparative advertisement is done highlighting the strength of the products of the advertiser, such advertisements should be permissible, the Court said.
In another case of generic brand disparagement Dabur India Limited vs. Dhruv Rathee And Ors a specific video, by influencer Dhruv Rathee, compared fruit juices with carbonated soft drinks. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had made direct reference to the product sold by them. It was also said that such a comparison was a direct attack against all packaged drinking fruit juices. To this, the Court pointed out that while the intention of the video cannot be questioned, while making direct and brazen references against the plaintiff’s products, the defendant has committed brand disparagement.
Source: Barandbench
