J&K&L High Court: Maternity Leave is a Constitutional Right and Cannot be Treated as State Charity  ||  P&H High Court: Second Anticipatory Bail Plea is Not Maintainable After Supreme Court Rejection  ||  Bombay High Court: No Prior Sanction is Required to Prosecute Police For Custodial Assault  ||  Allahabad High Court: Strict Proof of Marriage is Unnecessary if Couple Lived as Husband and Wife  ||  Delhi High Court: UP Passport Disputes Cannot be Filed in Delhi Only Because MEA is Based There  ||  Bombay High Court: Revenue Officers Cannot Decide Caste Status to Remove Tribal Land Protections  ||  Calcutta High Court: Punjab National Bank Liable to Compensate Farmers For Crop Insurance Lapse  ||  Calcutta High Court: Joint Settlement of Liquor Licence is Allowed if All Eligible Heirs Consent  ||  Delhi High Court Holds Multiple Sclerosis is a Specified Disability under the RPWD Act  ||  Allahabad High Court: An Alibi Must be Proved at Trial and Cannot be Accepted by the IO Alone    

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