Comparative advertising is a form of marketing in which advertisers compare their products with those of competitors, This is a fairly common practice in the Indian market. The Delhi High Court is in Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Limited and Ors ( "Reckitt Benckiser India" ) v Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited ( "Wipro corporation" ) The case expressed its view on the permissible comparative advertising. The case involves two brands of hand sanitizer: Reckitt Benckiser "Dettol" and Wipro corporate "Santoor" . The Delhi High Court ruling has significant implications for advertisers, Because it confirms that comparative advertising has a wide range of applications, And opened the door to countless ways to describe products as superior to competitors' products.

The text of the controversial AD reads as follows: For one mother Santoor The hand sanitizer cleaned his rough and stained hands, Then I went to play with my daughter. The child was surprised to feel the softness of his mother's hand. Mother after playing with her child, Took down a label from the shelf "Regular hand sanitizer" Plastic bottle——The shape of the plastic bottle is the same as that of Dettol products——And replaced with Santoor Hand sanitizer bottle. The AD voiceover emphasizes, new Santoor Sanitizer contains sandalwood, Can keep hands soft, while "Normal" The same is not true of hand sanitizers.

right Santoor Hand sanitizer charges

Reckitt Benckiser India claimed the AD was derogatory to its Dettol hand sanitizer. It draws the court's attention to that fact, That is, after the COVID-19 pandemic, People wash their hands a lot, So you prefer to use those that don't dry out your hands, Hand sanitizer that keeps your hands soft and moisturized instead. therefore, Keeping hands soft is a major need for customers who buy hand sanitizer.

It also highlighted several instances of conversations and scenarios that allegedly damaged its brand, Such as:

－The child is feeling the mother's use Santoor A surprised look on his face after his hand was washed with hand sanitizer;

－The mother took down from the shelf the bottle in the same shape as the Dettol product, with Santoor Hand sanitizer bottles instead;

－What this substitution conveys ( "Santoor Hand sanitizer moisturizes your hands, Dettol hand sanitizer lacks this effect" ) ;

－ "Normal" The use of the word on Dettol hand sanitizer bottles; and

－The voiceover stressed Santoor The quality of hand sanitizer, At the same time lambasting Dettol hand sanitizer: "Regular hand sanitizer" .

Reckitt Benckiser India believes, The advertisement created a false narrative, Dettol hand sanitizer does not soften or moisturize hands, Although it actually contains lactic acid and glycerin, It keeps your hands soft. however, Through this AD, The customer may make an inference: Santoor Hand sanitizer is even better. In explaining the comparative advertising law in India, Reckitt Benckiser India argues, Although praising your own product is allowed, But advertisers cannot denigrate or disparage competitors' products; The company claims Wipro The company crossed that line. In addition, Reckitt Benckiser India also considers that it has a valid design registration for the design of the Dettol hand sanitizer bottle, Therefore, the use of a bottle with the same design in a commercial advertisement constitutes piracy.

Wipro The company defended its advertising, Clarify that the AD only praises its own product, There is no denigration of Dettol products in any name. It further stated that the AD did not comment on any features of Dettol products. On the contrary, All it cares about is Santoor Hand sanitizer contains sandalwood (Dettol does not) And the fact that this ingredient has moisturizing properties, This is a real situation. Wipro The company also noted, It was captured in an advertisement Santoor The bottle replacement took only two seconds, It's for anything that doesn't contain sandalwood "Normal" Hand sanitizer brand information. In terms of conversations and scenarios cited by Reckitt Benckiser India, Wipro The company argues, Its ads do not make any statistical comparisons of features, To assert that its effect is superior to that of another product.

Allegations of design piracy, Wipro The company believes that, Piracy only occurs when the infringing design is used in the sale of the product. It is worth noting, During the debate, Wipro The company's lawyers freely admitted that the generic hand sanitizer shown in the advertisement was in fact Dettol's product.

View of the Delhi High Court

The court concluded after analysing various cases relating to comparative advertising and derogatory behaviour, It is impossible for a competitor's product not to be the target of advertising, Either directly or by implication. Targeting a competitor's product implies a certain level of disparagement. It further explained, Misleading and false statements are not allowed, however "extol" Be an exception, Because it involves exaggeration, There is no need to test for authenticity. In addition, Extol the virtues of a product, At the same time, it is not actionable to claim that a competitor's product lacks these advantages; On the contrary, Denigrating a competitor's product to show that it is bad or inferior is not allowed.

The court also explained, What matters most is the overall impression the AD makes on a reasonable person. therefore, Intention of advertisement, storyline, Context and information are crucial; Frame-by-frame checking should not be done, But its overall impact on the general audience should be analyzed. Along these lines, The court held that, The AD does not disparage Dettol products, Because the whole narrative of the AD is focused on Santoor Hand sanitizer, There is no direct reference to the quality or characteristics of Dettol hand sanitizer. In addition, "Normal" The word is used to specify divide Santoor All brands except hand sanitizer. finally, Court recognition Wipro The company's view on design piracy, There is no such thing as piracy.

Despite admitting that the bottle shown in the advertisement was Dettol, But the court extrapolates from the dialogue and the scene, The bottle represents all other santal-free hand sanitizer brands.

The court's final conclusion was, The overall impression of the AD did not denigrate the Dettol product. In the words of the court, "A slur is a positive slur on a competitor's product. And in the AD in question, This is clearly not the case" .

The ruling has significant implications for advertisers, Because it reaffirms the limitations of comparative advertising, And opened the door to countless ways of portraying a product's superiority. (Be compiled from www. worldtrademarkreview. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.