The Delhi High Court has dismissed a series of suits filed by Proctor & Gamble Home Products Private Limited (P&G) and Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against each other’s shampoo advertisements, which they claimed were disparaging in nature and hurting their reputations.
Stating that the court would become a laboratory if it began investigating the correctness of the claims made by the firms, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw noted: “Neither are the courts equipped for such a probe nor is that the role of the courts. If the court commences investigating the correctness of the claims, the courts would be converted into labs determining the comparative merits of rival products.”
Disparagement claimed
P&G had contended that HUL, in a TV ad for its shampoo sachet, had disparaged its goods as being ineffective compared to its own products — though without naming any P&G product. HUL retaliated with a cross suit against a series of P&G ads, which allegedly showed the superior dandruff effectiveness of its product in comparison to sachets with blue and dark blue curves — typical of HUL’s product.
The High Court, however, said there was nothing disparaging about the ads. “It was held that if a product is good, adverse advertising may temporarily damage its market acceptability, but certainly not in the long run. The result of a lab test, relied on in the ads to claim their own products to be superior, are in my opinion not treated by the ordinary consumer as authoritative,” said the court.
“The ads inform consumers about how different brands can have different impact, leading to an informed consumer,” Justice Endlaw said. The court stated that the tag lines used by the firms in their ads were “mere statements of opinions and not statements of fact,” Justice Endlaw said.
“Disparagement claimed is with respect to shampoo sold in sachets. Each sachet is for one-time use. A consumer of sachets is more likely to experiment than a consumer of shampoo in bottles. Market forces will prevail ultimately,” the court said.
