![]() Indian Express |
![]() Express India |
![]() Screen |
![]() Loksatta |
![]() Express Cricket |
![]() Kashmir Live |
![]() Biz Publications |





: Comparative advertising, as the name suggests, is advertising of a product or service by comparing it with similar products or services (usually the compe-titor’s). One advantage of comparative advertising is that it improves the quality of information available to consumers, thus enabling them to make more informed decisions relating to a choice between competing products/services by demonstrating the merits of comparable products.
However, there is an implicit danger in the practice. Once an entity addresses the merits and inadequacies of competing goods or services, it may be tempted to denigrate them or derive unfair advantages from such inaccurate comparisons. In such a scenario, commercial relationships get exposed to the constant threat of unfair practices.
The Trademark Act, 1999, allows the use of a registered trademark by a person for the purposes of identifying products or services as those of the proprietor, provided the use is:
* In accordance with honest practices followed in industrial or commercial spheres;
* and does not take unfair advantage of or is detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark.
Subject to reasonable restrictions imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, an advertisement is considered to be commercial speech guaranteed under Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India.
A case in point is Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd versus Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd and Two Others, where the dispute related to the television commercial of Volini pain reliever manufactured by Ranbaxy Laboratories. In the said ad/television commercial, a woman (presumably the mother) was shown flipping out a box of pain relievers that bore uncanny resemblance to the packaging of Moov, marketed by Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Later in the commercial, another woman was shown coming to the rescue of the first woman (mom) and suggesting another remedy. She offered a pack of Volini gel to her saying, “You need a true pain reliever.” The Gujarat High Court held that the advertisement disparaged Paras Pharmaceuticals Ltd’s product.
Another case in point is Eureka Forbes Ltd versus Pentair Water India Pvt Ltd. It was over an advertisement that claimed “Water contains contaminants that are invisible to the naked eye and to your UV water purifier.” The Court granted an order of injunction that restrained Pentair Water India from broadcasting that advertisement, or circulating or distributing any material defaming or maligning Eureka Forbes’ Aquaguard or UV Purifiers. The Court observed that since Eureka Forbes used UV technology in Aquaguard, the...
More from BrandWagon
| Single Page Format | 1 - 2 - 3 - Next |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |


© 2009: The Indian Express Limited. All rights reserved throughout the world