You are here: Home » Companies » Industry
Business Standard

Shampoo advertisment wars: Delhi High Court dismisses P&G, HUL suits

P&G restrained HUL from airing Clinic Plus shampoo ad showing Head and Shoulders as ineffective

Sayan Ghosal  |  New Delhi 

shampoo, clinic plus, head and shoulder

The on Friday dismissed a series of suits filed by Home Products Private Limited (P&G) and (HUL) against each other's advertisements, which the had claimed were disparaging in nature and hurting their respective reputation and goodwill.

P&G was the first of the two to approach the high court and on September 9, 2016, successfully managed to restrain HUL from airing their sachet advertisement, which P&G had claimed was showing their Head and Shoulders product as ineffective through deceptively similar depictions of the brand's own sachet.

Reacting to the move, HUL retaliated soon after by filing its own cross suit against a series of P&G advertisements, which allegedly showed the superior dandruff effectiveness of their Head and Shoulders in comparison to sachets with blue and dark blue curves, which were typical of HUL's copyrighted sachet. HUL also challenged the comparison as promoting unfair competition since had never claimed to be an anti-dandruff unlike the rival P&G product. After considering the arguments, the court had reserved its judgment in the matter late last year.

Friday's verdict by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw now concludes this courtroom spat between the two FMCG majors, with neither party getting their way. The pronouncement of the judgment also brings to a close one of the several cross-suit sagas, instituted by consumer goods manufacturers in the high court in recent times.

RECOMMENDED FOR YOU

Shampoo advertisment wars: Delhi High Court dismisses P&G, HUL suits

P&G restrained HUL from airing Clinic Plus shampoo ad showing Head and Shoulders as ineffective

P&G restrained HUL from airing Clinic Plus shampoo ad showing Head and Shoulders as ineffective
The on Friday dismissed a series of suits filed by Home Products Private Limited (P&G) and (HUL) against each other's advertisements, which the had claimed were disparaging in nature and hurting their respective reputation and goodwill.

P&G was the first of the two to approach the high court and on September 9, 2016, successfully managed to restrain HUL from airing their sachet advertisement, which P&G had claimed was showing their Head and Shoulders product as ineffective through deceptively similar depictions of the brand's own sachet.

Reacting to the move, HUL retaliated soon after by filing its own cross suit against a series of P&G advertisements, which allegedly showed the superior dandruff effectiveness of their Head and Shoulders in comparison to sachets with blue and dark blue curves, which were typical of HUL's copyrighted sachet. HUL also challenged the comparison as promoting unfair competition since had never claimed to be an anti-dandruff unlike the rival P&G product. After considering the arguments, the court had reserved its judgment in the matter late last year.

Friday's verdict by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw now concludes this courtroom spat between the two FMCG majors, with neither party getting their way. The pronouncement of the judgment also brings to a close one of the several cross-suit sagas, instituted by consumer goods manufacturers in the high court in recent times.
image
Business Standard
177 22

Shampoo advertisment wars: Delhi High Court dismisses P&G, HUL suits

P&G restrained HUL from airing Clinic Plus shampoo ad showing Head and Shoulders as ineffective

The on Friday dismissed a series of suits filed by Home Products Private Limited (P&G) and (HUL) against each other's advertisements, which the had claimed were disparaging in nature and hurting their respective reputation and goodwill.

P&G was the first of the two to approach the high court and on September 9, 2016, successfully managed to restrain HUL from airing their sachet advertisement, which P&G had claimed was showing their Head and Shoulders product as ineffective through deceptively similar depictions of the brand's own sachet.

Reacting to the move, HUL retaliated soon after by filing its own cross suit against a series of P&G advertisements, which allegedly showed the superior dandruff effectiveness of their Head and Shoulders in comparison to sachets with blue and dark blue curves, which were typical of HUL's copyrighted sachet. HUL also challenged the comparison as promoting unfair competition since had never claimed to be an anti-dandruff unlike the rival P&G product. After considering the arguments, the court had reserved its judgment in the matter late last year.

Friday's verdict by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw now concludes this courtroom spat between the two FMCG majors, with neither party getting their way. The pronouncement of the judgment also brings to a close one of the several cross-suit sagas, instituted by consumer goods manufacturers in the high court in recent times.

image
Business Standard
177 22