`Comparative ads' need to be curtailed: HC
The Madras High Court has expressed the view that in these days when MNCs marketed their products in the country, it was high time that the `comparative advertisement' (comparing one's product with that of the competitor) was to be curtailed. Such "curtailment/ban" was to be brought out by suitable amendment to the MRTP Act and the Code for Commercial Advertising on Doordarshan and other satellite television channels and other media.
Disposing of applications filed by the two major beverage manufacturers — GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd and Heinz India Pvt Ltd — about publication of advertisements alleged to be disparaging in nature, Ms Justice R. Banumathi said that comparative advertisement was at present promoted involved balancing of interest. In case of commercial disparagement by a competitor, one must be cognizant of the interest of advertisers in promoting their products. At the same time, the interest of those who might be damaged by competitor's attacks on their products was also to be kept in mind.
The prime consideration would be the public interest in obtaining accurate and fair information about the commercial products, the Judge opined. The comparative advertisement and the subtle disparaging in advertisement appeared to be growing in popularity. But law had not kept pace in striking a proper balance among these competitors. Attempt to induce consumers by giving negative impression of the competitor's product should be discarded.
The cases related to the telecasting of the impugned advertisement `Complan School Boy Advt' which was alleged to be disparaging the plaintiff's products (Glaxo). The court, in response to plaintiff's plea, ordered interim injunction. The defendant (Heinz) sought suspension of interim injunction.
After dealing with issues placed before the Court and after citing case laws of the apex court and High Courts, the Judge said that taking cognizant of the attack on the competitor's product aimed by comparative ad, in some of the western countries, comparative advertisement was totally banned.
Advertisements could be attractive and pretty. Many comparative ads brought laughter. But the targets were not laughing beneath comparative commercial ads of late 20th century and this century did cause harm.
The temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from using the two cups with letters `X' & `Y' along with `Complan' cup and the defendant was also restrained from using the words `Largest selling brands' in the bottom frame. The defendants were allowed to continue their ad using one cup (without letters `X' & `Y') exhibiting along with `Complan' cup showing another cup (without letters `X' & `Y'). It was further ordered that pouring of liquid in the comparative cup must be of the same colour as that of `Complan' product. The defendants were also allowed to continue the ad with the bottom frame excluding the words `Largest selling brands.'
The defendants were not liable for contempt of court, the Court held.
