1994 (10) TMI 315 - Commission - Indian Laws

Commission rules no disparagement in advertising dispute under Monopolies Act. Product claims allowed if compliant.

The Commission ruled in favor of the respondent, finding that the advertisement did not constitute disparagement under the Monopolies and Restrictive ... - Issues:- Complaint of unfair trade practices and disparagement in advertising.Analysis:1. The complaint alleged that the respondent, a manufacturer of liquid blue under the brand name 'Ujala,' engaged in a misleading advertising campaign through Doordarshan, disparaging the complainant's product, 'Regaul.' The Commission issued a notice of enquiry under relevant sections of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act based on the complaint.2. The respondent denied the allegations, stating that the advertisement was not aimed at disparaging any specific manufacturer and that it merely highlighted the effectiveness of their product. The respondent also took corrective action promptly upon receiving an injunction order from the Commission.3. The Commission framed issues for consideration, including the maintainability of the notice of enquiry, whether unfair trade practices occurred, and if such practices were prejudicial to public interest or consumers. Witnesses were examined, and documents were submitted by both parties to support their claims.4. The Commission found that the respondent's advertisement did not meet the criteria for disparagement under Section 36A(1)(x) of the Act. The advertisement did not specifically target the complainant's product, and the visual representation in the advertisement did not identify any specific manufacturer. The Commission emphasized the need for false or misleading representations to prove disparagement.5. Referring to past rulings, the Commission highlighted that claims of product superiority or technology do not necessarily constitute disparagement. Legitimate advertising strategies to boost sales are allowed as long as they comply with the Act's provisions. The Commission concluded that the impugned advertisement was a form of puffing up the product and did not amount to disparagement.6. Consequently, the Commission ruled in favor of the respondent, finding no evidence of unfair trade practices as alleged. As a result, the notice of enquiry was discharged without any costs imposed on either party.