Comparative advertising

CHENNAI
3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,
Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPARATIVE
ADVERTISING
HORlICkS OR COMPlAN? THE COMPARISON
wAR!!!
FIlMA VARGHESE
TRADEMARk DEPARTMENT

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
DEFINITION
COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
The term ‘comparative advertising’ refers to any form
of advertising in which a trademark owner attempts
to enjoy pecuniary benefits from a comparison
between his product, service, or brand and that of a
competitor.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Comparative advertising is a marketing strategy in which
a company wants to show that its product or service is
better than the competitors.
• They may explicitly name a competitor or implicitly refer
to him.
• They may either emphasize the similarities or the
differences between the products.
• The comparisons can be vocal or visual.
• The advertised brand can have a market share smaller
than, roughly equal to, or greater than the comparison
brand.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
OBJECTIVES OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Evaluation of brand performance
• To degrade the competitor’s brand
• Acceptance of brand
• Convince users
• Increases consumer’s information

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
IMPACT OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Influencing the perception of the consumer
regarding a brand
• Current sales can be increased
• Competitors brand loyalty can be hampered
• Shifting of consumers

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
LEGAL PROVISIONS OF COMPARATIVE
ADVERTISING
Until it was repealed by the Competition Act 2002, Section
36A(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act,
1984 provided a basis upon which a claim could be made
against disparagement of goods. Section 36A(x) limited
comparative advertising by recognizing that the publishing of
any misleading or disparaging facts about a competitor’s goods
or services amounted to ‘unfair trade practice’.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
Comparative advertising shall be permitted when the following
conditions
are met:
• It is not misleading
• It compares goods or services meeting the same needs or intended for
the same purpose
• It objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and
representative features of those goods and services, which may include
price.
• It does not create confusion in the market place between the
advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser’s trademarks,
trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those
of a competitor
• It does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark,
trade name, or other distinguishing marks of a competitor.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited v.
Heinz India Private Limited and Ors. 2007 (2) CHN 44.
HORLICKS
Horlicks was invented by William Horlick (William) and his
brother James Horlick (James) (1844-1921) in 1873. The brothers
belonged to Gloucestershire, England.
COMPLAN
Complan, owned by the Heinz Company, was one of the most
popular health drinks in India. The name Complan was coined
from the words "COMplete" and "PLANned". Complan was
introduced by Glaxo Laboratories (Glaxo) in the UK during
World War II (1939-1945), as an essential nutritional
supplement for soldiers at the frontlines.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISING WAR BETWEEN TWO POPULAR
HEALTH DRINK BRANDS HORLICKS AND
COMPLAN IN INDIA
.
• Supremacy between these two brands started as early as the
1960s.
• The brands were involved in aggressive comparative
advertising in print and television over attributes such as
ingredients, protein content, growth, and flavors.
• In late 2008, the makers of Horlicks, GlaxoSmithKline
Consumer Healthcare, and the makers of Complan, Heinz
India, came out with advertisements that directly
compared the brands using the competitor brand's
trademarks.
• The advertisements talked about how their respective
brand was better than the other and showed the
competitor's product in bad light when compared to the
company's products.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISING WAR BETWEEN TWO POPULAR
HEALTH DRINK BRANDS HORLICKS AND
COMPLAN IN INDIA
.
• With constant mud-slinging at each other, the two
companies decided to solve the issue in court.
• In September 2008, Heinz moved the Bombay High Court
objecting to advertisements of Horlicks which highlighted
the nutritional content and price gap between the two
brands, and showed Horlicks as a better and more
inexpensive health drink than Complan.
• The advertisement showed the competitor brand clearly
while making the comparison. Heinz later followed up
with its own ad comparing Horlicks unfavorably with
Complan. This prompted GSK to file a case in the Delhi
High Court in December 2008 claiming that the ad
released by Heinz disparaged its brand by calling it low
priced, and thereby damaging its reputation.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPLAN ADVERTISEMENT VS HORLICKS
ADVERTISEMENT
.
First Suit – 2577 of 2008 (Glaxo v. Heinz)
The first suit pertains to two advertisements by Complan (Heinz). In the
first advertisement the ‘Complan Mummy’ tells the Horlicks Mom that
she’s compromising her child’s health by buying a product made of cheap
ingredients and that her (fat) child would not grow as fast as a child who
was fed Horlicks. The Complan mother then picks out a Complan packet
and explains how it has 23 vital ingredients which would ensure fast
growth of a child. The ad then shows the Horlicks mother visibly pushing
away a package bearing the Horlicks trademark explaining how she had
been misled and how she would no longer repeat the same mistake again.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISEMENT
.
Second Suit – 2646 of 2008 (Horlicks v. Heinz)
The second suit pertains to a print advertisement in leading Delhi
newspapers comparing the ingredients of Complan and Horlicks with
specific emphasis on the fact that some of the ingredients in Horlicks
are ‘cheap’ and how a Child’s growth would be compromised by
consuming Horlicks. The advertisement also draws attention to a
scientific report by the National Institute of Nutrition which
substantiates the fact that Complan has good ingredients etc.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISEMENT
.
Third Suit – 547 of 2010 (Heinz v. Glaxo)
This suit which was transferred from the Bombay High Court to the
Delhi High Court was filed by Complan (Heinz) against Horlicks. This
30 seconds advertisement placed both the products i.e. Complan &
Horlicks next to each other, compares the prices and according to
Heinz, passes disparaging comments against the quality and nutritional
value of Complan when compared to Horlicks.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
THIS CASE WAS DESIGNED TO:
• Analyze the advertising strategies adopted by Complan and
Horlicks over the years;
• Understand the issues and challenges faced by companies
while using comparative advertising;
• Examine the efficacy of comparative advertising in
enhancing brand image and sales;
• Study the implications of the advertising war between
Complan and Horlicks;
• Discuss and debate the legal/ethical issues involved in the
case.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
JUDGMENT
.
• A trader can puff up his goods in comparison to his competitor’s
goods but he cannot denigrate or disparage the competitor’s goods
while doing so.
• It may be permissible to state that Product A is better than Product B
it is not permissible to state that Product B is worse than Product A.
• Justice Bhat also draws a distinction between advertisements in
different mediums i.e. print and television with the standard of
judicial scrutiny being much higher in the latter than in the former.
The reason for this according to Justice Bhat is the fact that television
advertisements unlike print advertisements make an instant impact
across consumer classes and the level of impact of such
advertisements on the consumer is much greater than a print
advertisement where each word has to be read, analyzed and
understood. Advertisers therefore will have to tread much more
carefully when creating comparative advertisements for television.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
JUDGMENT
.
• In his order, Justice Bhat finds the two advertisements in the first
suits as disparaging and beyond the realm of permissible puffing.
The primary reason for this is that the repeated use of the word
‘cheap’ & ‘compromise’ along with the remaining insinuations
would definitely harm the reputation of Horlicks.
• The advertisements in the second suit were held to be in the realm
of puffing as they seem to be based on some scientific report, the
validity of which could be established only during trial.
• The advertisement in the third suit were held to be in the realm of
puffing. Justice Bhat did not agree with Complan’s allegation that
the manner of comparison between both products disparaged its
own product and held the same to be fair.
• All three suits pertain to commercial disparagement. Justice Bhat
has very clearly ruled in favour of Horlicks since the ad-campaign
against them was clearly disparaging and also ordered Complan to
pay Horlicks costs of Rs. 2.2 Lakhs only.

CHENNAI
Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.
Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE
Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,
26-27, M G Road,
Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATORE
BB1, Park Avenue,
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
EMAIL
info@altacit.com
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
THANK YOU

Comparative advertising

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Comparative advertising

Semelhante a Comparative advertising (20)

Mais de Altacit Global

Mais de Altacit Global (20)

Último

Último (20)

Comparative advertising