COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING: AN OVERVIEW JURISDICTION REPORT: INDIA
Sudeep Chatterjee and Archana Sahadeva Singh & Singh
Te history of comparative advertising dates back to the beginning of commerce itself. It has always been normal for a trader to attempt to enjoy pecuniary benefits by drawing a comparison between the qualities of his products/services and a competitor’s.
While comparative advertising was initially restricted to ‘puffery’—where a trader list facts about the product, or makes vague claims which cannot be proved or disproved—some traders, in the name of comparative advertising, have started ‘disparaging’ competitors’ goods, forcing the law to intervene. Puffery and disparagement can therefore be considered as the two fundamental facets of comparative advertising.
In India, the law on comparative advertising has developed through judicial precedent. During the late 1990s, courts took the view that while ‘puffing’ is permissible, any statement or image which demeans or disparages a competitor’s product is not. Tis view was consistently upheld by courts in many cases.
In all these cases the guiding principle for the courts has been that “Te law is that any trader is entitled to puff his own goods even though such puff as a matter of pure logic involves the denigration of his rival’s goods. Notices reading ‘the best tailor in the world’, ‘the best tailor in this town’ and the ‘best tailor in this street’ do not commit an actionable offence. When, however, the trader is not puffing his own goods but turns to denigrate the goods of his rival then the situation is not so clear-cut.
“Te statement ‘my goods are better than X’s’ is only a more dramatic presentation of what is implicit in the statement ‘my goods are the best in the world’ and would not be actionable. However, the statement ‘my goods are better than X’s because X’s are absolute rubbish’ would be actionable.”
Te above cases relate to instances wherein the rival’s product was clearly identifiable. However, competitors have found an innovative way to indulge in comparative advertising, by condemning a whole class of products instead of a specific competing product, thereby creating an entirely new species of comparative advertising: ‘generic disparagement’.
In this form of comparative advertising the competitor does not merely disparage a specific product but indulges in disparagement of a complete class of products. One of the earliest cases of generic disparagement was Dabur India Ltd v Emami Ltd. In this case the court was concerned with a commercial wherein an entire class of products, ‘chyawanprash’ (a herb and spice mix), was denigrated.
One of the market leaders manufacturing chyawanprash objected to the commercial by filing a civil suit for injunction. Te court held that the plaintiff enjoyed a market share of more than 63 percent for this class of products and thus had a vital interest in ensuring that its product or the class as a whole was not condemned in any manner. Te Learned Single Judge therefore recognised the concept of generic disparagement and granted an injunction.
www.worldipreview.com
“THE REFUSAL OF AN INJUNCTION TO COLGATE APPEARS TO BE A SIGN THAT COURTS RECOGNISE THE MATURING OF ECONOMIES AND CONSUMERS.”
Tereaſter, a series of cases have maintained that if a complete class of products is being disparaged, then it would be permissible for one manufacturer or more who constitute that particular class or are market leaders, to take action.
A review of case law clearly shows that courts in India have gone beyond the days of White v Mellin (House of Lords) and expanded the scope of comparative advertising to include a class of products and not restricted it to disputes between two competitors.
In conclusion, the four-pronged test for disparagement can be summarised as:
i. An advertisement is commercial speech and is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution;
ii. An advertisement must not be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive;
iii. Grey areas need not necessarily be taken as serious representation of facts but only as glorifying one’s product; and
iv. While glorifying its product, an advertiser may not denigrate or disparage a rival product.
In recent times the courts have held that companies should not be too sensitive when it comes to comparative advertising. Te refusal of an injunction to Colgate appears to be a sign that courts recognise the maturing of economies and consumers. Tis may just be the beginning of a new jurisprudence requiring companies to show greater tolerance to comparative advertising and a signal that market fights ought to be fought in the markets and not in a court of law.
With the opening up of the economy, while it can be argued that comparative advertising is essential since it assists the consumers in making an informed decision, it is important to establish a comprehensive scheme of regulation to safeguard the interests of the consumer as well as the competitors.
Sudeep Chatterjee is a partner at Singh & Singh. He can be contacted at:
sudeep@singhandsingh.com
Archana Sahadeva is a senior associate at Singh & Singh. She can be contacted at:
archana@singhandsingh.com
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 173
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196