23 October 2024
Read More3 October 2024
Read More26 September 2024
Read MoreWe are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
Read MoreWe started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
Read MoreWe and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
17 February 2022
Applying the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Limited [151 (2008) DLT 650], the Calcutta High Court has held that an advertisement claiming that Baidhyanath Chyawanprash Special is ‘enriched with 52 Ayurvedic herbs’ whereas ‘ordinary Chyawanprash’ are made ‘with 42 ingredients only’, is disparaging.
It observed that the comparison made by the defendant/respondent was specifically pointing towards deficiency of the other rival products including the petitioner’s product and that the claim made by the defendant about number of ingredients in Chyawanprash of the rival product was false and misleading.
Noting that the comparison with a number of ingredients, that is, 42 ingredients, was malicious and slanderous as the product cannot be complete with 42 ingredients as per the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the High Court also held that when the defendant highlights that other Chyawanprash contain only 42 ingredients, which is an untrue statement, it cannot claim right to free speech. It was of the view that such a comparison was slanderous and mischievous, and accordingly, amounts to disparagement.
The High Court in this case of Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. [Judgement dated 8 February] also summarised the key principles that are required to be kept in the Court’s mind before deciding on whether the offending advertisement is disparaging or is a mere puffery.
According to the Court, in disparagement, the Court must decide whether a reasonable man would take the claim being made as being a serious claim or not and the impugned advertisement campaign has to be looked into with a broader perspective to decide whether a serious comparison is made by the alleged infringer.
It noted that a comparison in the nature of ‘Better or Best’ based on truthful claims is permitted, but comparison in the nature of ‘Good v. Bad’ is not. The Court observed that if the advertisement gives out an impression that the rival product has a defect or demerit (which is not true) then such impression would make it disparaging.
Further, observing that the comparison between rival products is allowed only to the extent of ‘Puff’ and honest trade practice, the Court noted that generic disparagement of a rival product is equally objectionable. Lastly, the Court observed that the comparative advertising campaign should be ‘comparison positive’.