But, Madras HC not happy with P&G disclaimer for Tide Naturals’ ad.
The Calcutta High Court today passed an interim order restraining Hindustan Unilever (HUL) from airing its commercial for Rin, the washing soap/powder brand. HUL was given 72 hours to comply.
The commercial, launched on February 26, highlights how it delivers superior whiteness in comparison to arch rival Proctor and Gamble’s Tide Naturals. The ad voice-over states: Tide se kahin behatar safedi de Rin (Rin gives much better whiteness than Tide).
“A detailed order is awaited. HUL will comply with the (stop) order,” said an HUL spokesperson, when asked for a comment.
Sources, however, said HUL would not mind withdrawing the ad, as it had already had a run for over a week and its purpose had been served.
Sumeet Vohra, marketing director of Procter & Gamble, India, said: “We are pleased that the Calcutta High Court supports our view that the recent Rin advertisement is misleading, and that the comparison made by HUL in the advertisement is false and incorrect. It is heartening to note that the court does not uphold the breaking of certain rules and guidelines that all advertisers have been following in this country so far.”
Salman Waris, Head of Technology Practice at India’s largest law firm, FoxMandal Little, said the issue of disparagement is dealt with under Section 36 of the MRTP Act and the Delhi High Court, in its Pepsi vs Cola decision (2003), “held that although a seller is entitled to glorify his product, in the process, he is not to denigrate or disparage a rival’s product”.
Earlier, too, in the comparative advertising case involving Dabur and Wipro, the Delhi High court held that “It is one thing to say that the defendant’s product is better than that of the plaintiff and it is another thing to say that the plaintiff’s product is inferior to that of the defendant.”
However, even as P&G revels in its victory over its arch rival at the Calcutta High Court, it was in a subdued mood at the Madras High Court, where HUL got a leg up in the matter pending before the court there.
In a hearing today, the Madras HC was dissatisfied with the modification made by P&G in its Tide Naturals’ commercial. The court reasoned that the font of the disclaimer - ‘It does not contain lemon and chandan’ - was too small. The court is said to have directed P&G to display the disclaimer prominently. The matter will come up for hearing on Tuesday.
HUL had objected to the use of the word ‘Naturals’ in the brand name, packaging, advertisement and sales promotions of Tide Naturals during today’s hearing at the Madras HC. If this relief sought by HUL is upheld, say industry and legal experts, it could put the entire Tide Naturals brand in jeopardy. “That’s because,” says a legal source, “P&G would have to modify the brand name altogether. This is dangerous because the company has invested in building the brand as it stands now.”
The legal departments of both companies are said to be hard at work trying to puncture each other’s defenses in the respective high courts.
As the HUL spokesperson indicates, the matter before the Calcutta HC is far from over. “It still continues,” he says.
(With inputs from Bibhu Ranjan Mishra in Bangalore)
