Imperial Tobacco Co. v. Albert Bonnan; AIR 1928 CAC 1
Lakhanpal National Limited v. M.R.T.P. Commission and Ors.; (1989) 3 SCC 251
Tata Press Ltd. v. MTNL and Ors., (1995) 5 SCC 139
“commercial speech” is a part of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Reckitt and Colman of India v. Kiwi TTK Ltd.;1996 (16) PTC 393
Hindustan Lever v. Colgate Palmolive (I) Ltd.; AIR 1998 SC 526
Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.; 1999 1 PTC 741
Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Jyothi Laboratories Ltd. and Ors.; 1999 2 CALLT 230 (HC)
Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1
A distinction would always have to be made and latitude given for an advertisement to gain a purchaser or two. This latitude cannot and does not mean any permission for misrepresentation but only a description of permissible assertion.
Reckitt Benckiser (India) Limited v. Naga Limited; 2003 3 AD (Del) 641
Pepsi Co., Inc. and Ors. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Anr.; 2003 (27) PTC 305 (Del)
Dabur India Ltd. v. Emami Limited; 112 (2004) DLT 73; 2004 (29) PTC 1 (Del.)
Dabur India Limited v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., AIR 2005 Del. 102
Eureka Forbes Ltd. v. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd.; 2007 (35) PTC 556 (Karn)
Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.; 2009 (40) PTC 653 (Mad.)
Dabur India Ltd. vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.: 167 (2010) DLT 278 (DB); 2010 (42) PTC 88 [Del]
An advertisement is commercial speech and is protected by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution.
An advertisement must not be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive.
Of course, there would be some grey areas but these need not
necessarily be taken as serious representations of fact but only as glorifying one’s product.
While glorifying its product, an advertiser may not denigrate or disparage a rival product.
S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. and Ors. v. Buchanan Group Pty. Ltd. and Ors.; 2010 (42) PTC 77 (Del)