Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Limited

“Health claims must be proven, not proclaimed.”

SHORT DESCRIPTION

The decision in Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Limited deals with misleading health and nutritional claims in advertising. The Delhi High Court examined whether an advertiser can claim superior health benefits without adequate scientific substantiation and reiterated that consumer trust cannot be compromised in the name of aggressive marketing.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Marico Limited, the manufacturer of edible oils, filed a suit against Adani Wilmar Limited alleging that Adani Wilmar’s advertisements claimed its cooking oil to be significantly healthier than Marico’s product. The advertisements suggested better heart health and superior nutritional value, which according to Marico were exaggerated and not fully supported by scientific evidence. Marico contended that such claims misled consumers and unfairly damaged its product’s market reputation.

ISSUES INVOLVED

The Court examined whether health-related claims in advertisements require strict scientific backing, whether exaggeration amounts to misleading representation, and whether such advertisements violate principles of fair competition and consumer protection.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

Marico argued that Adani Wilmar’s claims were misleading and selectively presented, creating a false perception of superiority. Adani Wilmar contended that its advertisements were based on available research and were a legitimate exercise of commercial speech.

FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT

The Court held that health and nutritional claims must be supported by reliable and complete scientific evidence. It observed that exaggerated or partially true claims can mislead consumers and distort fair competition. The Court emphasized that advertisers bear a higher responsibility when making health-related assertions.

SUGGESTION / PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY

Companies must ensure that health benefit claims are accurate, verifiable, and responsibly communicated. Misleading claims may invite injunctions and reputational harm.

JUDGMENT

Year: 2013

The Court restrained Adani Wilmar from continuing misleading health-related advertisements.