Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF), which owns the Amul
brand, has challenged a Bombay High Court
order passed in June, arguing before an appeal bench of the court that the ban imposed on its ice cream versus frozen dessert commercial needs to be set aside.
R S Sodhi, managing director, GCMMF confirmed the development and said that the premise of the appeal is that the commercial merely seeks to educate consumers about the differences between frozen desserts
and ice creams. "Our commercial seeks to educate consumers about the differences between ice creams and frozen desserts
and there is no other intention. We seek direction from the High Court
in this matter," he said.
The Rs 27,000-crore dairy and dairy products giant is appealing against an order, dated June 16, of a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court.
Justice S J Kathawalla had granted a plea filed by the Hindustan Unilever
(HUL), makers of Kwality Walls
ice creams and frozen desserts, for an injunction against rival Amul’s advertisements. The commercials allegedly disparaged Kwality’s frozen desserts, claiming ice-creams contained milk fat while frozen desserts
had vanaspati (vegetable oil).
The ads were consequently pulled off the air. The GCMMF started airing the ads since March 4; they also ran a print campaign in all leading dailies.
The ad campaign highlighted ingredients that go into making ice-creams and frozen desserts.
According to some sources, the tone of the ad seemed to suggest that ice-creams were healthier.
had taken the matter to court on March 21, claiming that it was misleading and disparaged its products.
Earlier in June, Sodhi had indicated to Business Standard that they were not ready to lay down arms yet and that besides planning to challenge the order in an appeal bench, they would also simultaneously work on another campaign on ice creams.
Sources say that the HC order is like a blanket ban on airing the ad and at best, the order could have sought to omit any portion of the commercial.