Supreme Court Unveiled Victim Protection Plan For Trafficking Survivors and Urged Legal Reforms  ||  Supreme Court Cautioned Against the Misuse of False POCSO Cases in Matrimonial Disputes  ||  Supreme Court Cautioned Against the Misuse of False POCSO Cases in Matrimonial Disputes  ||  SC: Assigning Mathadhipati’s Secular Duties to Govt Officer Violates Art 26, Undermines Mahantship  ||  Supreme Court: All MIDC Units are Exempt From Property Tax Until Services are Transferred to NMMC  ||  Supreme Court: All MIDC Units are Exempt From Property Tax Until Services are Transferred to NMMC  ||  SC: Arbitral Award Unenforceable if Invoked During Pending Civil Suit Without Court’s Permission  ||  Delhi High Court: Participation in Protests Can't Be a Ground to Deny Bail in PMLA Case  ||  Delhi High Court Lays Down Guidelines to Mask Personal Details in Orders under Right to be Forgotten  ||  Raj HC: Poverty Cannot Defeat Right to Bail and Accused Cannot be Jailed For Lack of Sureties    

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