The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) against Abbott Laboratories, restricting the circulation of an advertisement for Ensure Diabetes Care. HUL argued that Abbott’s advertisement disparaged its Horlicks Diabetes Plus by creating a misleading impression. The court found merit in HUL’s claims, noting the ad’s intent to undermine its competitor.
Read more about Ensure Diabetes Care’s Advertisement Disparages Horlicks Diabetes Plus, says the Bombay High CourtTag: Comparative Advertising
Comparative Advertising: Pepsodent v. Colgate
This post was first published on August 21, 2013 There is yet another war between Hindustan Unilever Limited (Pepsodent) and Colgate- Palmolive (Colgate), regarding a...
Read more about Comparative Advertising: Pepsodent v. ColgateTrademark Violations in Comparative Advertising
This post explores the legal aspects of trademark violations in comparative advertising in India. It discusses statutory boundaries, the importance of honest practices, and the risks of defamation or infringement.
Read more about Trademark Violations in Comparative AdvertisingClinic plus v. Head & Shoulders, Comparative advertising, Trump Trademarks, INTA study on counterfeit products and piracy & more
This update reviews major trademark law developments in India, including recent court judgments and trends in comparative advertising. It also provides insights into Trump-related trademark filings, the INTA study on counterfeiting, and international trademark law changes.
Read more about Clinic plus v. Head & Shoulders, Comparative advertising, Trump Trademarks, INTA study on counterfeit products and piracy & moreCan Supreme Court be the pain reliever?
The ongoing dispute between Moov and Zandu Balm raises critical questions about trademark disparagement and comparative advertising law in India. The Supreme Court appeal is set to clarify legal standards for such contentious advertisements.
Read more about Can Supreme Court be the pain reliever?