Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramachandran & Anr

“Comparative advertising is allowed—but disparagement of a competitor’s product is not.”

Short Summary :

Reckitt & Colman (maker of Robin Liquid Blue) successfully obtained an injunction from the Calcutta High Court against M.P. Ramachandran (maker of Ujala blue whitener). The court found that defendant’s advertisement disparaged the plaintiff's product by specifically depicting it as wasteful and inferior through visual reference to packaging, price, and effect. The court laid down five guiding principles limiting permissible comparative advertising.

Facts :

⦁ Plaintiff: Reckitt & Colman manufactured a blue whitener under the brand name “Robin Blue”, with a registered design and trademark.

⦁ Defendant: M.P. Ramachandran launched a rival product named “Ujala” and ran an advertisement featuring a container (similar to Robin Blue) priced at ₹10—a price point unique to Robin Blue at the time—thus identifying it unmistakably.

⦁ Advertisement content: It depicted the Robin Blue container pouring liquid messily (not in drips) with the message that the product is uneconomical—implying it costs more, requires more usage, and creates wastage. This was seen as targeted disparagement.

Findings :

The Calcutta High Court (Barin Ghosh, J.) held:

⦁ Boastful claims allowed: A trader can claim his goods are the best or better—even if untrue.

⦁ Comparison allowed: He may compare advantages of his goods with others.

⦁ But disparagement not allowed: He cannot say the competitor’s goods are “bad” or harmful—that amounts to slander or defamation.

⦁ No defamation, no action: If there's no defamation of competing products or manufacturers, no legal action lies. But if defamation occurs, injunctive relief is available.

⦁ Applied to case: The court found that the advertisement targeted and disparaged Robin Blue by using identifiable imagery, price, and negative portrayal—thus granting an injunction.

Suggestion / Implications :

⦁ Permissible: Advertising that claims superiority (e.g., “my product is better”) or compares features with competitors is allowed—even if untrue, as long as it's not pejorative.

⦁ Impermissible: Harsh, pejorative depictions or messaging implying the competitor's product is “bad,” “wasteful,” or inferior in a defamatory sense crosses a legal line.

⦁ Practical takeaway: Marketers must carefully evaluate whether their comparative ad targets a competitor in a general, fair comparison or disparages it specifically. Subtle implications through packaging, price, or depiction can be enough to trigger injunctive action.

Judgment with Date :

⦁ Court: Calcutta High Court (Single Judge, Barin Ghosh, J.)

⦁ Date: August 24, 1998

⦁ Order : The previously granted injunction against advertisement continued; defendants were restrained from repeating the disparaging advertisement targeting Robin Blue