Delhi High Court Restrains Complan From Telecasting an Impugned Advertisement Defaming Horlicks

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant seeking a permanent injunction. This was to prevent its company from telecasting an impugned advertisement. Herein, the Complaint was a deliberate attempt to defame the plaintiff’s health food drink. 

Brief facts of the case

The Plaintiff is a recognized corporation. Its product, Horlicks, is being sold globally. It is one of the reputed drinks that acquired a trademark in 1943. The product is a complete health drink that caters to the needs of the consumers. It contains essential nutrients that have attracted consumers. The product aims at the development of children. While in this case, the defendant is a competitor. They manufacture and sell a nutritional drink under the trademark, Complan. In July 2019 the plaintiff came to know that the defendant had launched a TV commercial (TVC). In that ad, they defamed the plaintiff’s product, Horlicks. The advertisement was defamatory and it abused the Plaintiff’s product. The law entitles the defendant to praise its product. However, it is not allowed to abuse the product of other parties in the process. Moreover, in this case, the parties have several prior litigations about the same.

Contentions of the Parties 

The learned counsel for the plaintiff said that firstly, the two products are different. Secondly, their comparison is misleading. Thirdly, the message given by the defendants is that their product is double that of the plaintiffs. Fourthly, they contend that comparing products can confuse the viewers. Further in this regard, they submit that the 6-second advertisement violates the general principles by disparaging the products of the plaintiff. They further submit that the voiceover in the advert does not clarify the portion size, and so this act of the defendants as false, misleading, unfair, and deceptive.

In Contrast, the Defendant’s counsel says that the intent and effect of the impugned advertisement were to measure the protein. It is also to educate the consumers about the protein in one cup of Complan as against Horlicks. Moreover, the said that the impugned advertisement is neither misleading nor disparaging. They submit that it is correct and not defaming. Additionally, the comparison of products as per the size is an accepted method of comparison. Furthermore, this method is essential, as serving per size provides every product with an assurance for safe and effective consumption of the said product. They also justify the same by saying that a lesser quantity won’t serve the purpose and an excess quantity of the health drink is detrimental to health.

Court’s Observation

The High Court accepts the view of the Defendant of the serving size of their product in comparison to Horlicks. However, it also agrees with the grievance of the plaintiff about the voiceover’s absence in the TVC. It said that the printed advert is not visible and audible in the impugned electronic medium. Also, six-seconds is too less a time for anyone to be able to notice the disclaimer on the TVC. The Court said:

This Court finds that on playing the TVC, there is no voiceover. There is no instruction or disclaimer with regard to the serving size. Also, the proper time to read the said disclaimer is not given. Keeping this view, the present advertisement in the electronic media would be disparaging. A bare look at the advertisement, a viewer can only see a comparison of one cup of COMPLAN with two cups of HORLICKS. There is no reference to the serving size.

Held 

The High Court of New Delhi ordered the defendant to restrain from advertising and to avoid the impugned television commercial. Further, it was said that this should remain in its present form till the disposal. The appeal was hence disposed of. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. Moreover, you can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -