Ridicule vs rivalry: Apple, Samsung cry foul over Xiaomi's ambush ads

Apple and Samsung have sent legal notices to Xiaomi, according to news reports, over advertisements (ads) comparing their phones with competitors. Experts say the dispute highlights how far marketers are willing to push boundaries to grab consumers’ attention.

   

Legal experts point out that while ambush marketing is legally permissible, it cannot cross into unfair ridicule. Brand experts, however, note that Xiaomi benefits by being thrust into the spotlight, which may even push consumers to take notice.

   

“Comparative advertising is healthy for consumer choice, but the moment it crosses into ridicule or misrepresentation, it becomes disparagement. Ambush marketing thrives on exploiting a rival’s brand equity without consent, and courts in India have consistently drawn that line,” said Ekta Rai, advocate, Delhi High Court.

   

“In the case of Apple and Samsung versus Xiaomi, the notices signal that leading brands will not tolerate campaigns that trivialise their reputation. Xiaomi’s defence will rest on whether its ads were factual comparisons or outright mockery. The outcome will shape how far Indian marketers can push the boundaries of creativity,” Rai added.

   

Nishidh Patel, partner at legal firm Singhania & Co., said Indian courts have struck a careful balance between commercial free speech and brand reputation, but cases like this will further test those boundaries.

   

“It remains to be seen how far our jurisprudence will go in drawing the line between fair competition and unlawful disparagement,” Patel said, adding that the recent notices from Apple and Samsung to Xiaomi highlight how Indian trademark law continues to evolve around ambush marketing and disparaging ads. “While comparative advertising is legally permissible, it cannot cross into unfair ridicule or unauthorised association that harms a rival’s goodwill,” he explained.

   

Brand expert N Chandramouli, chief executive officer of TRA Research, said the lifespan of the ad in question is already over. “Xiaomi may agree to apologise, and these cases are better settled outside court than in court.”

   

He added that many brands across sectors take digs at rivals but usually do so with subtlety. “Xiaomi will stand to gain attention from this fight if it gathers traction, as it may push consumers to look at Xiaomi’s features and compare,” Chandramouli said.

   

In this case, Apple and Samsung’s decision to issue cease-and-desist notices rather than immediately pursue litigation represents a measured legal approach. Under Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, Apple and Samsung have strong grounds to argue that Xiaomi’s use of their brand imagery and direct references in advertising takes unfair advantage of their established brand recognition, explained Ashutosh K Srivastava, partner at SKV Law Offices.

   

He added: “When a competitor’s product is portrayed with mockery — as in this case, with references to ‘cute’ cameras or archaic features — rather than objective metrics, the line into disparagement is crossed. It is a settled position of law that while comparative advertising is permissible under Indian law, disparagement of another’s product in the process is forbidden. False claims and statements that can cause disrepute to a brand or its product can attract legal challenges.”