04-07-2025
HC: Talcum powder ad calling other products ‘ordinary' not an insult
Kolkata: Using the word 'sadharan' (ordinary) for other products in a talcum powder advertisement is not an insult to the rival company's product, Calcutta High Court observed on Wednesday while dismissing Emami's "disparagement" claim against Dabur.
A division bench of justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar said: "It is permissible to portray that the advertiser's product is the best in the world. However, what is shunned is the direct or indirect denigration of the product of another manufacturer. Use of the word 'sadharan' in the context of the present advertisement does not speak ill about the product or say that it is inferior as such. It merely projects the respondent's product as extraordinary as compared to others' products, which are said to be 'sadharan' or ordinary.
"
The court noted that the freedom of commercial speech of Dabur (respondent) and its fundamental right to do business cannot be "throttled" on a vague perception of disparagement, "which is completely illusory" in the present case.
You Can Also Check:
Kolkata AQI
|
Weather in Kolkata
|
Bank Holidays in Kolkata
|
Public Holidays in Kolkata
Emami Limited filed a case against Dabur India Limited for its 'Cool King' advertisement. They claimed that the protagonist in the advertisement is shown carrying a bottle labelled as ordinary, which looked similar to that of their prickly heat powders "Dermi Cool" and "Navratna".
In July 2024, Emami filed a case and got a temporary stop order on July 11, 2024, by which Dabur was restrained from showing the disputed bottle.
The court also noted that in the advertisement, there was "no mouthing of the name of the appellant's product and the bottle shown is completely different in shape, size and colour from that of the appellant's product".
"Even taking into consideration the overreaching sweep of the appellant's products in the market, unless one is an avid follower of advertisements, having nothing better to do, it is improbable that a common target consumer of normal prudence would have such double recall upon viewing the 'offending' advertisement, connecting the present bottle with that of a bottle which was being shown six months back, and to relate the previous bottle with the product of the appellant," the HC held.
