Comparative ads are OK, not disparagement

Though a certain amount of disparagement is implicit in comparative advertising, it is legal and permissible as long as it does not mislead, the Delhi High Court stated in the dispute between Horlicks Ltd and its rival, Heinz India Ltd, makers of Complan. Summarising the law on disparaging advertisements, the judgment said advertisement is a facet of commercial speech, which is protected by the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Horlicks had alleged that the rival company denigrated its product in ads, claiming one cup of Complan is equivalent to two cups of Horlicks in protein benefit. Heinz later modified the ad but it did not satisfy Horlicks. Its petition to stop the renewed ad campaign was rejected by the high court. The advertisement in question compared a material, relevant verifiable feature of the drink in question and had not manipulated its serving size; an advertiser is not obliged to compare all parameters of the rival products and it is open to him/her/it to highlight a special feature/characteristic of the product which would set its product apart from the competitors', as long as it is true.