Hll Seeks Stay On Mrtpc Order Against Pepsodent Ad

Hindustan Lever yesterday sought a stay of the proceedings in the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission over its advertisement for New Pepsodent, to which Colgate has objected.

According to HLL, the appointment of a three-member panel of experts to examine its claim that its toothpaste was 102 per cent better than any other rival was illegal and without jurisdiction.

The commission had decided to appoint such a panel which will report its finding within four to five months. Till then, the ad campaign was stopped. This order of November 6 was followed by a battle of press releases and a contempt of court petition. HLL has since changed the content of the controversial ad.

 

HLL counsel Harish Salve argued before a bench consisting of Justice Suhas Sen and Justice M Jagannadha Rao that the commission had granted an injunction against it at the request of Colgate without any prima facie evidence that its claim was wrong.

The commission had earlier said the issue was too complicated for it to handle and therefore an expert panel should be appointed. Till the issues are finally decided, the ad campaign must stop, the commission had said.

This injunction was based on wrong procedure because Colgate must first prove that the HLL claim was wrong. It was Colgate which came up with the complaint and it was its duty to prove that the claim was false.

The commission presumed falsity on the part of HLL, which was not permissible, the counsel argued. The counsel submitted that the comparison of products was common in the advertisement field. Advertising now is not a gentlemans game as it was 30 years ago, he stressed. If the commission order stands, it will strangle all aggressive advertising. Competition will suffer, he added.

What the law bans is disparagement of rival products, not comparison, he emphasised. If a company says its product is better than the others it is not disparagement. The counsel showed the advertisements of Wipro, Toshiba, BPL Appliances of India, Daewoo and Tesco of England.

The judges referred to the ads where the Telegraph and the Statesman of Calcutta claimed higher circulation and observed that the feud should be fought in the market place.

Salve agreed and said that it was Colgate which took the issue to court. Colgate is yet to reply to the HLL arguments and the hearing was adjourned for next week.