Bom HC: Civil Court Can Invoke Sec 151 CPC to Dismiss a Suit as Infructuous if Cause of Action Ends  ||  Kerala HC: Arrest Grounds Need Not Be Shared With Foreigner’s Family If FRRO Or Embassy is Informed  ||  Delhi HC Granted Interim Relief to JioStar in a Dispute over Legends League Cricket Broadcast Rights  ||  SC: Dishonour of a Post-Dated Cheque Alone Does Not Establish Dishonest Intent For Cheating  ||  SC: Disciplinary Proceedings Started During Service May Continue After Retirement If Rules Allow  ||  Supreme Court: Earning Interest on a Bank Deposit Does Not Make it a Commercial Purpose  ||  CCI Dismisses Complaint Against Rapido over Use of Private Vehicles in Bike Taxi Service  ||  Allahabad HC: State Must Protect Individuals Threatened for Conducting Prayers in Private Spaces  ||  Madras HC: Habeas Corpus Petition Cannot Be Used if Wife Voluntarily Elopes with Another Man  ||  Calcutta High Court: Post-VRS Service Benefits Cannot be Denied; Ex-Employees Entitled to Arrears    

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