In a significant legal decision, the Delhi High Court delivered a verdict on Thursday, rejecting Dettol’s plea to prohibit Wipro Enterprises from airing an advertisement. The advertisement in question allegedly made derogatory remarks about Dettol while promoting Wipro’s own Santoor Hand Wash. The case, titled “Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Limited & Anr v Wipro Enterprises (P) Limited,” concluded with the court dismissing Dettol’s request, thereby allowing Wipro to continue running the advertisement without restraint.
Justice C Hari Shankar, a single judge of the Delhi High Court, dismissed the plea for interim relief, stating that the Santoor advertisement does not belittle or criticize Dettol. The court opined that it would be an exaggeration to interpret any derogatory or demeaning aspects about Dettol from the impugned advertisement. The court emphasized that even when considering all the elements of the advertisement collectively, there is no message that denigrates or disparages Dettol in any way.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the advertisement does not directly reference any property or characteristic of Dettol, focusing solely on Santoor. The ruling underscores that the entire content of the advertisement relates only to Santoor and does not make any negative remarks about Dettol.
In a suit brought forth by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, the manufacturer of Dettol, the Court rendered its decision. The case revolved around an advertisement by Santoor, which depicted a young girl longing to play with her mother. However, the mother’s hands were shown as rough and dirty due to her involvement in gardening. Upon washing her hands with Santoor Hand Wash, the mother’s hands became noticeably soft, prompting her daughter to persuade her to continue playing.
During the advertisement, a voiceover proclaimed, “haath itne soft ki chhodne ka mann na kare” (the hands are so soft that you do not feel like leaving them). Subsequently, the mother affectionately touched her daughter’s cheeks and proceeded to pick up a plastic bottle labeled ‘ordinary hand wash’ from the shelf.
Dettol alleged that the bottle depicted in the advertisement resembled the shape of Dettol Hand Wash. The Court, however, addressed the matter while issuing its order.
Amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, Dettol claimed that the advertisement gained additional significance as people have been diligently washing their hands. They argued that the advertisement effectively undermines Dettol by suggesting it lacks moisturizing or hand-softening properties, thereby insinuating its inferiority compared to Santoor.
On the other hand, Wipro Enterprises, the manufacturer of Santoor, countered by stating that the advertisement does not refer to the specific properties of Dettol. They maintained that the advertisement simply highlights the inclusion of sandals in Santoor, which Dettol does not contain, and emphasizes sandals’ skin-softening properties.
The defendants further asserted that Santoor’s Unique Selling Point (USP) lies in its use of natural ingredients and adherence to Ayurvedic principles. They argued that the advertisement merely encourages potential customers to choose Santoor over other products, without implying any harm associated with the latter.
The contrasting arguments were presented before the Court during the proceedings.
Justice Hari Shankar, after considering the arguments presented, acknowledged the importance of not leaving any child nameless. Consequently, the child featured in the advertisement was referred to as Priya throughout the extensive 90-page judgment.
Regarding the issues raised in the lawsuit, the Court clarified that comparative advertising is permissible under the law as long as it does not involve denigration or disparagement. The primary message conveyed by the advertisement, according to the Court, is to praise Santoor as superior to similar products and highlight its moisturizing properties due to the inclusion of sandals.
The Court firmly stated that it would be an overinterpretation to extract any derogatory implications about Dettol from the advertisement. The Court emphasized that Priya’s amazement, being the response of a young girl around 5 to 6 years old, should not undergo in-depth psychoanalysis. Priya’s joy at her mother’s soft hands does not imply that her mother’s hands were not soft previously. Instead, it simply suggests that her mother’s hands are now even softer. The Court concluded that Priya’s reaction represents the spontaneous response of a child rather than the critical assessment of a reviewer.
The Court observed that, at most, the message conveyed by the advertisement could be interpreted as Santoor making Priya’s mother’s hands softer than they were before using Santoor, implying that Santoor had better moisturizing qualities than Dettol.
Regarding the act of removing a Dettol-like container from the shelf, Justice Hari Shankar determined that the entire sequence lasted only two seconds, with the sole message being the preference for Santoor over other hand washes, including Dettol.
Consequently, the Court concluded that there was no prima facie case to justify restraining the broadcasting or display of the contested advertisement, ultimately dismissing the application.
Representing Reckitt Benckiser (Dettol), Senior Advocate CM Lall, along with advocates Nancy Roy, Aastha Kakkar, Prashant, Nida Khanam, and Ananya Chug, appeared before the Court.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, accompanied by advocates Ankur Sangal, Pragya Mishra, Trisha Nag, Sanya Kumar, and Asavari Jain, appeared on behalf of Wipro Enterprises (Santoor).
Written by – Sohini Chakraborty under Legal Vidhiya
