Delhi High Court Asks HUL To Broadcast Domex Advertisements After Removing Harpic References

The Delhi High Court has recently upheld the decision of a single judge bench directing that the advertisement of a product of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) called ‘Domex’ will be broadcasted only after removing all references related to Reckitt’s product- Harpic. The bench was hearing an appeal filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. against the single judge’s decision.

The bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan held that a false advertisement campaign would cause irreparable loss to Reckitt while it would not have any material effect on HUL as they are free to advertise their product without any reference to Reckitt’s product.

In the matter at hand one print advertisement and three YouTube videos were aired for advertising the product under the trade name ‘Domex’ which is an HUL product. Additionally, a TV commercial was also launched in 2021. These advertisements were found to be prima facie, disparaging the toilet cleaner sold by Reckitt under the Trademark ‘Harpic’.

It has been submitted on behalf of HUL that the advertisements show that the effect of Domex would last longer than Hrapic and hence they depict the truth. It was further submitted that the advertisements were permissible and ought not to be interdicted. However, it was submitted on behalf of Reckitt that the advertisements were misleading and disparaging.

Accordingly, Reckitt filed an application that sought interim relief to restrain HUL from publishing or telecasting these advertisements. A single judge bench had disposed of the application while holding that the concerned advertisements seek to malign Reckitt’s product as they show Harpic to be an ordinary toilet cleaner. It was also observed that the bottle shown in the advertisement as an ordinary toilet cleaner had the shape which is the registered trademark of Reckitt’s product- Harpic.

The Delhi high court bench has observed that a statement of fact or a representation made in an advertisement must not only be accurate but should not be misleading, as well, and has to be viewed from the standpoint of the customers that the advertisements seek to target.

The bench noted that it is possible that a particular feature of the product, which has no material relevance, is compared with the feature of the competing product to craft an advertisement reflecting the product of the advertiser to be superior to the product of its competitor. The bench observed that while the statement regarding comparative features may be true, the overall commercial advertisement may be grossly misleading.

Accordingly, the bench held that it does not find any infirmity in the decision of the single judge bench as HUL has not been interdicted from broadcasting the video advertisements but has only been directed to remove references about Harpic from those advertisements.