SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

Gillette India Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. - (High Court of Delhi) (01 Jun 2016)

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

MANU/DE/1381/2016

Media and Communication

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 :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved