Havells was upset that Eveready’s LED bulb ad compared only price and lumens — omitting Havells’ other advantages. But does leaving out a rival’s strengths amount to disparagement? The Delhi High Court said no: you needn’t compare every feature, and certainly needn’t praise your competitor.
The dispute
Eveready compared its “Eveready LED Bulb” with “Havells LED Bulb.” Havells argued the ad used selective, mischievous means — the line “check lumens and price before you buy” would mislead consumers into comparing only two attributes. Its core point: all relevant parameters must be compared to convey the whole truth.
Eveready countered that the comparisons came from the product packaging of the companies named, that there’s no legal requirement to disclose every factor, and relied on a Dabur case: glorifying your own product is permissible provided the rival’s isn’t denigrated.
The court’s analysis
- What is comparative advertising? The court used the EEC Advertising Directive’s definition — advertising that “explicitly or by implication identifies a competitor or [its] goods or services.”
- Is it permissible? Yes — the ASCI code allows comparative advertising “in the interest of vigorous competition and public enlightenment,” subject to conditions.
- Must you compare all features? No. There’s no rule requiring every feature to be compared. The judge noted the plaintiff insisted on it only because the defendant had compared prices — effectively conceding that comparing all aspects isn’t legally required.
- When is an ad misleading? Two elements: it must deceive (or be able to deceive) its audience, and be likely to affect their economic behaviour or harm a competitor. On the facts, the ad was not misleading.
Sections 29(8) and 30(1)
The court held these provisions exist to allow honest comparative advertising:
- Section 29(8) — a mark is infringed by advertising that takes unfair advantage of / is contrary to honest practices, is detrimental to distinctive character, or is against the reputation of the mark.
- Section 30(1) — no infringement if the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial/commercial matters.
The ad was therefore not trademark infringement.
The decision
No requirement in law to disclose every characteristic in comparative advertising — no reasonable observer expects a trader to list all the advantages of a competitor’s business. Mere trade puffery, even if uncomfortable, doesn’t amount to trademark infringement.
As the piece wryly notes: why would your competitor highlight the advantages of your product? They’re meant to do the opposite.
The takeaways
- You needn’t compare every feature — selective comparison isn’t automatically dishonest.
- You needn’t praise your rival — no observer expects a competitor to list your strengths.
- Misleading needs deception + economic effect — both elements are required.
- Honest comparative advertising is protected — Sections 29(8)/30(1) permit it; puffery isn’t infringement.
Frequently asked questions
Is comparative advertising legal in India? Yes — it’s permitted in the interest of competition and consumer information, provided it’s honest and doesn’t denigrate the rival’s product (Sections 29(8)/30(1) and the ASCI code).
Must an advertiser compare all product features? No — the Delhi HC held there’s no rule requiring every feature to be compared; selective comparison isn’t inherently dishonest.
When is an advertisement misleading? When it deceives (or can deceive) its audience and is likely to affect their economic behaviour or harm a competitor — both elements must be met.
Is trade puffery trademark infringement? No — mere puffery, even if uncomfortable to a competitor, doesn’t amount to trademark infringement.
Useful official resources
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI)