‘Disparaging’ a category is actionable: HUL tells court

The lawyers for Hindustan Unilever Ltd argued in the Bombay High Court on Friday that Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd’s (GCMMF) Amul ice-cream ads were guilty of disparaging frozen desserts. The maker of Kwality Walls ice-cream argued that identifying a particular brand or company by name was not necessary for an ad to be guilty of “general disparagement.”

GCMMF had earlier argued that its Amul ice-cream ads did not hurt Kwality Walls because they did not refer to it by name, rather depicted a generic cup labelled “frozen dessert”.

In the arguments, it was revealed that HUL and GCMMF had exchanged emails on the ads that Amul ran, where HUL had asked the company to stop airing the ads, saying that Kwality Walls was made with vanaspati or hydrogenated vegetable oil.

Tulzapurkar argued that Amul’s subsequent change in the ads, from vanaspati to vanaspati tel was not enough. “The effect of that change is zero because the image from the first ad is fixed in the public mind.

However, GCMMF’s counsel held their ground arguing that the argument was invalid since Amul had changed its ads to say vanaspati tel in reference to frozen desserts instead of vanaspati.

GCMMF MD RS Sodhi declined to comment, saying the matter was subjudice. A HUL spokeswomen said she was unable to offer an comment since the matter was subjudice.

The matter has been adjourned to Monday.