Havells India Ltd. & Anr. v. Amritanshu Khaitan & Ors.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section Order XXXIX Rule 1

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 29(8)Section 30(1)

Provisions considered: Sections 29(8) and 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Brief facts

Havells sued the promoters of a competing lighting business over a comparative advertisement for LED bulbs that compared brightness and price with Havells' LED bulbs while omitting comparison of power factor and overall product life, alleging that the selective comparison was misleading, disparaging and diluted its trade mark. Havells sought an interim injunction, arguing that an advertiser inviting comparison on value must disclose all relevant parameters and not selectively highlight only attributes favourable to itself.

Issues before the Court

1. Is an advertiser in comparative advertising obliged to disclose every relevant feature of a competitor's product, or may it compare only selected verifiable features?
2. Does the impugned advertisement amount to disparagement or dishonest practice under Sections 29(8) and 30(1)?

Court's findings

The Court held that comparative advertising is lawful and permissible in the interest of vigorous competition and consumer information, and that Sections 29(8) and 30(1) permit use of a competitor's mark in advertising so long as the comparison is honest, relates to material, relevant and verifiable features, and does not unfairly denigrate the rival's goods.

The Court found no requirement in law that an advertiser disclose every attribute of a competitor's product, and held that failure to point out a competitor's advantages is not, by itself, dishonest.

The Court observed that a certain degree of disparagement is implicit in comparative advertising, and that puffery limited to favourably highlighting one's own product is not actionable so long as it does not descend into denigration of the rival's goods. Since the advertisement compared brightness and price, both material and verifiable features, without making false claims, it did not fall foul of honest practice.

Decision

Application for interim injunction dismissed; the comparative advertisement was held not misleading, disparaging or in violation of honest commercial practice.

Cases cited

• Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., (1995) 5 SCC 139

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

Comparative Advertising Disparagement Honest Practices Section 29(8) Trademark Infringement