Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

Facts

Hindustan Lever advertised that its 'New Pepsodent' toothpaste had '102% more' germ-fighting capability than 'the leading toothpaste', with imagery widely understood to point at Colgate Dental Cream. Colgate complained to the MRTP Commission that the campaign falsely disparaged its product and constituted an unfair trade practice. The matter reached the Supreme Court on the question of interim restraint.

Issues

• Whether an advertisement that claims superiority over, and impliedly denigrates, a competitor's product is an unfair trade practice giving false or misleading facts disparaging another's goods.
• Whether the MRTP Commission could grant interim relief restraining such an advertisement.

Arguments

Colgate argued the campaign falsely disparaged its product by implication and misled consumers, justifying restraint. Hindustan Lever argued mere puffery and comparison of one's own product favourably was permissible and did not specifically name or disparage Colgate.

Held

The Supreme Court treated giving false or misleading facts that disparage another's goods as falling within the mischief of unfair trade practice and upheld the maintainability of relief against such advertising. It recognised that disparagement can be indirect or implied, and that a claim of one's own superiority that necessarily implies the inferiority of an identifiable rival product can amount to disparagement and an unfair trade practice. The Court emphasised that the Commission had power to grant interim relief to prevent injury from a misleading or disparaging campaign pending adjudication.

Ratio decidendi

An advertisement that, expressly or by clear implication, gives false or misleading facts disparaging a competitor's goods is an unfair trade practice and may be restrained even at the interim stage.

Significance

Leading authority establishing that comparative and disparaging advertising falls within the unfair-trade-practice net. Its reasoning underpins clause (x) of S. 2(47) CPA 2019 (false or misleading facts disparaging another's goods) and the CCPA's mandate over misleading advertisements; it is repeatedly relied on in later disparagement disputes (e.g., Dabur v. Colgate).

Related