Research and Articles
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
Hotline
![](/Content/images/arrow-3-right-red.png)
- Capital Markets Hotline
- Companies Act Series
- Climate Change Related Legal Issues
- Competition Law Hotline
- Corpsec Hotline
- Court Corner
- Cross Examination
- Deal Destination
- Debt Funding in India Series
- Deal Talk
- Dispute Resolution Hotline
- Education Sector Hotline
- FEMA Hotline
- Financial Service Update
- Food & Beverages Hotline
- Funds Hotline
- Gaming Law Wrap
- GIFT City Express
- Green Hotline
- HR Law Hotline
- iCe Hotline
- Insolvency and Bankruptcy Hotline
- International Trade Hotlines
- Investment Funds: Monthly Digest
- IP Hotline
- IP Lab
- Legal Update
- Lit Corner
- M&A Disputes Series
- M&A Hotline
- M&A Interactive
- Media Hotline
- New Publication
- Other Hotline
- Pharma & Healthcare Update
- Press Release
- Private Client Wrap
- Private Debt Hotline
- Private Equity Corner
- Real Estate Update
- Realty Check
- Regulatory Digest
- Regulatory Hotline
- Renewable Corner
- SEZ Hotline
- Social Sector Hotline
- Tax Hotline
- Technology & Tax Series
- Technology Law Analysis
- Telecom Hotline
- The Startups Series
- White Collar and Investigations Practice
- Yes, Governance Matters.
- Japan Desk ジャパンデスク
Dispute Resolution Hotline
February 21, 2019Comparative advertisements vs. product disparagement: Walking the thin line
This article was originally published on 6th February, 2019 in Master Class column of
SUMMARY:
With fast-paced competition, every brand wants to be in the evoked set of consumer’s brand and hence, Companies often resort to comparative advertising in order to grab consumer attention. Companies use comparative advertisements to promote, compare and highlight the superiority of its product with that of the competitor. However, in doing so, there is a tendency to cross the line and stray into the realm of product disparagement.
In this article (to access click here ), we inter alia discuss two recent judgments on the permissibility of comparative advertisements published by Amul (against Kwality) and Complan (against Horlicks).
We have provided a precedential backdrop w.r.t. the evolution of jurisprudential principles, thereby deliberating on the thin, yet shifting lines between comparative advertisement and product disparagement. The courts now appear to acknowledge the flexibility that an advertiser ought to be permitted to exaggerate the strengths of a product and indulge in puffery as long it's not misleading, unfair, deceptive and falsely disparages a rival product or even a class of products.