SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance  ||  SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property  ||  Raj HC: Having Different Age Criteria For Contractual and Regular Appointments is Unconstitutional  ||  Delhi HC: Registered Property Title Prevails over Claims Based on Oral Family Settlements  ||  Gauhati HC: Only A Family Court Can Grant A Divorce under Muslim Law, Not A Civil Judge  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Compel Lawyers to Disclose Sources of Documents Filed on Clients' Instructions  ||  SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income  ||  SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes  ||  SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties  ||  SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order    

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