P&G was the first of the two companies to approach the high court and on September 9, 2016, successfully managed to restrain HUL from airing their Clinic Plus shampoo 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 shampoo in comparison to sachets with blue and dark blue curves, which were typical of HUL's copyrighted Clinic Plus sachet. HUL also challenged the comparison as promoting unfair competition since Clinic Plus had never claimed to be an anti-dandruff shampoo 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.
 "shampoo, clinic plus, head and shoulder")
