Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 441 views

    Horlicks Limited & Anr. Vs Zydus Wellness Products Limited

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Singh Raghuvanshi
    The case involved a dispute over a television commercial by Zydus Wellness Products that compared its Complan nutritional drink to Horlicks Limited's Horlicks drink. Horlicks claimed the ad disparaged its product by showing the serve sizes as the same despite their difference. The court found that the ad did not provide adequate time or voiceover for its disclaimer and could mislead viewers into believing the comparison without the serve size context. It ruled the ad intentionally disparaged Horlicks' product and violated principles of fair advertising. Comparative ads are allowed but cannot be false, misleading or deceptive to consumers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Horlicks Limited & Anr. Vs Zydus Wellness Products Limited

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Singh Raghuvanshi
    441 views3 pages
    The case involved a dispute over a television commercial by Zydus Wellness Products that compared its Complan nutritional drink to Horlicks Limited's Horlicks drink. Horlicks claimed the ad disparaged its product by showing the serve sizes as the same despite their difference. The court found that the ad did not provide adequate time or voiceover for its disclaimer and could mislead viewers into believing the comparison without the serve size context. It ruled the ad intentionally disparaged Horlicks' product and violated principles of fair advertising. Comparative ads are allowed but cannot be false, misleading or deceptive to consumers.

    Original Title

    Horlicks Limited & Anr. vs Zydus Wellness Products Limited

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The case involved a dispute over a television commercial by Zydus Wellness Products that compared its Complan nutritional drink to Horlicks Limited's Horlicks drink. Horlicks claimed the ad disparaged its product by showing the serve sizes as the same despite their difference. The court found that the ad did not provide adequate time or voiceover for its disclaimer and could mislead viewers into believing the comparison without the serve size context. It ruled the ad intentionally disparaged Horlicks' product and violated principles of fair advertising. Comparative ads are allowed but cannot be false, misleading or deceptive to consumers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    441 views3 pages

    Horlicks Limited & Anr. Vs Zydus Wellness Products Limited

    Uploaded by

    Anuj Singh Raghuvanshi
    The case involved a dispute over a television commercial by Zydus Wellness Products that compared its Complan nutritional drink to Horlicks Limited's Horlicks drink. Horlicks claimed the ad disparaged its product by showing the serve sizes as the same despite their difference. The court found that the ad did not provide adequate time or voiceover for its disclaimer and could mislead viewers into believing the comparison without the serve size context. It ruled the ad intentionally disparaged Horlicks' product and violated principles of fair advertising. Comparative ads are allowed but cannot be false, misleading or deceptive to consumers.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Horlicks Limited & Anr.

    Vs

    Zydus Wellness Products Limited

    CS(COMM) 464/2019

    By

    Swetalika Das

    Third Year

    Amity School of Law, Kolkata

    1|Page
    POINT OF LAW:

    In this case, the main point of law was raised on “whether the comparative advertisement made
    by the defendant leads to product disparagement?” Comparative advertisement is legal and
    permissible. However, the comparison cannot be false, misleading, unfair and deceptive.

    BACKGROUND:

    The Plaintiff has adopted the trademark “HORLICKS” in the year 1943 which was extensively
    marketed and sold whereas the defendant as a competitor of the plaintiff was mainly engaged
    in manufacturing and selling a nutritional drink under the trademark “COMPLAN”.

    The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for permanent injunction and sought to restrain
    from telecasting an impugned advertisement as the same amounted into deliberate
    disparagement of the plaintiff health food drink HORLICK through a television commercial
    (TVC).

    Plaintiff Contentions:

    ● It was argued that the defendant violated the general principles and intentionally disparaged
    the plaintiff’s product by showing the serve size of plaintiff and defendant as same despite
    knowing the fact that the serve size of both the products are different.

    ● It was contented that the defendant didn’t provide adequate time for consumer to notice the
    disclaimer written on the advertisement as there was no voice over for the disclaimer. The clip
    was only for six seconds which makes hard for any person to notice.

    Thus, making the advertisement false and misleading.

    Defendant Contentions:

    ● It was argued that the intention of defendant was only to educate the customers by
    advertisement with respect to the protein content in one cup of COMPLAN as per the
    recommended serve size of 33 grams being equal to two cups of HORLICKS as per the
    recommended cup size 27 grams as provided in their respective packages. Thus, the
    advertisement is neither misleading nor defamatory.

    ● It was also argued that per serve recommended by a party is a recognized method of
    comparison. The same is also mentioned under section 3 of the food safety and standard
    packaging and labelling regulation 2011.

    2|Page
    ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

    After hearing arguments of both the parties, the Delhi High Court stated that the main issue
    lies in whether the disclaimer put in the print advertisement is visible and audible in the
    electronic medium. It was observed that on playing the TVC, there was neither any voice over
    nor the sufficient time to read the said disclaimer. A viewer can only see the comparison of one
    cup of COMPLAN with two cups of HORLICKS without any reference to the serve size.
    According to one of the previous precedents, the electronic medium is a very powerful medium
    of communication. It has a far greater impact than an advertisement in the print media and
    leaves an enduring mark on the mind of viewers. Hence, every new person who views the
    advertisement can easily get mislead. The Delhi High Court further stated that there was no
    voice over for disclaimer, also, the visual advertisement was only for six seconds which is an
    insufficient time for anyone to note the disclaimer. This shows that the defendant intentionally
    disparaged the plaintiff’s product and misled the consumer. Therefore, the court restrained the
    defendant from advertising the impugned television commercial in the present form.

    CONCLUSION:

    An advertisement is a commercial speech and is protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the


    constitution. However, if an advertisement is false, misleading, unfair or deceptive, it would
    certainly not get any benefit of protection. Also, while deciding the question of disparagement
    advertising it is important to understand the intent of advertisement and overall effect of
    advertisement.

    There is no doubt that comparative advertisement is beneficial as it helps in increasing the


    awareness of consumers. It also helps in developing marketing strategies adopted by many
    businessmen but it has to follow certain rules and must not mislead the consumers. It is also
    permissible according to section 29(8) and Section 30(1) of Trademarks Act,1999 but with
    certain limitations with respect to unfair trade practices.

    3|Page

    You might also like