We 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.
We 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.
We 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.
Comparative advertising of soaps – No violation of trademark law if backed by science
By Ayushman Kheterpal and Sudarshan Singh Shekhawat
Comparative advertisement may often lead to a legal tussle under the Indian Trademark Law. The article in this issue of IPR Amicus discusses elaborately the recent decision of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited and Another v. USV Private Limited which has since been upheld by the Division Bench and maintained by the Supreme Court. The dispute involved three advertisements of the defendant which solely on the basis of pH levels allegedly disparaged the plaintiff’s products by insinuating that the use of plaintiff’s soaps on skin was as bad as using a detergent soap, while stating that pH level of the defendant’s soap was perfect for skin. The Single Judge permitted the defendants to air such advertisements, though without any reference to any washing detergent. While deciding the issue whether the defendant can be permitted to say that the plaintiff’s products were ‘not ideal’ for sensitive skin, the Division Bench held that there was some scientific basis for saying so. According to the authors, the dispute bears a resemblance to the Delhi High Court’s decision in Havells India Ltd. and Ors. v. Amritanshu Khaitan and Ors, and even though the defendant had not compared the constituent ingredients of the soap with that of the plaintiff’s soaps, the same may not be necessarily required...
Ratio Decidendi
Deception and confusion in trade dress – Similarities to be examined but dissimilarities cannot be ignored – Delhi High Court
Trademarks – Monopoly claim over use of acronym when not sustainable – Delhi High Court
