SC: Hard to Believe Married Woman Was Lured Into Sex by False Marriage Promise; Case Quashed  ||  SC: Properties Acquired by Karta are Presumed to be Joint Hindu Family Assets unless Proven Otherwise  ||  SC: Trial Courts Must Record that Free Legal Aid was Offered to Accused Before Witness Examination  ||  SC: State Government Employees Cannot Claim Dearness Allowance Twice a Year Unless Rules Allow  ||  P&H High Court: Anticipatory Bail on Settlement Can be Revoked if Compromise is Broken  ||  Delhi High Court: Consenting Adults can Choose Life Partners Without Societal or Parental Approval  ||  Cal HC: Excessive Palm Sweating Alone Cannot Render Candidate Medically Unfit for CAPF Appointment  ||  Del HC: Mother's Right to Education and Personal Growth Cannot be Restricted Due To Custody Disputes  ||  SC: Under RTE Act, States Cannot Justify Low Teacher Pay by Citing Centre’s Failure to Release Funds  ||  Supreme Court: While a Child’s Welfare is Paramount, It is Not the Sole Factor in Custody Disputes    

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