Supreme Court Upholds Conviction as Husband Failed to Explain Wife’s Death in Matrimonial Home  ||  Supreme Court: Crime Scene Re-Enactment Does Not Always Violate Right Against Self-Incrimination  ||  Supreme Court: Cognizance Taken Without Hearing Accused under BNSS Section 223 is Void Ab Initio  ||  Supreme Court Upholds Will in Sister’s Favour, Says Excluding Natural Heirs is Not Suspicious  ||  Delhi HC: Absence of Public Witnesses and Videography in NDPS Recovery Relevant for Bail Decisions  ||  Raj HC Initiates Suo Motu Cognizance Over Severe Water Crisis in Jodhpur, Issues Interim Directions  ||  Del HC: Courts Cannot Direct, Monitor Inquiry Into Police Delay in Investigation After Bail Decision  ||  Supreme Court: After the BNSS, a Pre-Cognizance Hearing is Mandatory in PMLA Cases  ||  SC: Landowners Cannot be Forced to Waive Statutory Compensation to Claim Other Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Banks are Lenient With Big Borrowers But Strict With Ordinary Loan Applicants    

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