In Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd, the issues of comparative advertisement were agitated in an appeal before a Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court.
In the appeal, the DB upheld a decision of the Single Judge Bench (SB). By the said decision, the SB had restricted Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), the defendant, from broadcasting its advertisements for the toilet cleaner under the trademark ‘Domex’ that contained references to the plaintiff, Reckitt Benckiser’s (Reckitt), toilet cleaner ‘Harpic’. The dispute arose when HUL broadcasted a television commercial, aired three YouTube videos and issued a print advertisement to promote ‘Domex’. These advertisements claimed that (i) Domex was better as its effect lasted longer than Harpic, (ii) Harpic is an ordinary toilet cleaner, effective only for one flush, (iii) Domex is effective for more than 100 flushes, and (iv) unlike Domex, ordinary toilet cleaners cannot combat bad odour. Reckitt claimed that the representation of the “ordinary toilet cleaner” in the advertisements was that of the Harpic bottle. Reckitt, therefore, argued that these ommercials were misleading and disparaged its trademark Harpic.