By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 7 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice, see our disclaimer
Puffery Is Lawful, Ridicule Is Not
Comparative advertising is itself lawful in India: a business may truthfully claim its product is better than a competitor's. But the manner of the comparison matters. Showing one's own product favourably is permissible puffery, while ridiculing, mocking or falsely denigrating a rival's product crosses into disparagement.
Courts have long held that disparagement should border on defamation of the competitor's goods to be actionable, and look at the overall impact of the advertisement on an ordinary consumer, rather than parsing isolated words or frames in isolation.
Referencing a Rival's Trademark in a Comparative Ad
Where a registered trademark is referenced or implied in a comparative advertisement, Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 permits such referential use where it accords with honest industrial or commercial practices. That protection is lost, however, where the use takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the rival's mark.
The Injunction Playbook, and Why an Undertaking Matters
The usual relief sought in a disparagement dispute is an urgent interim injunction restraining telecast or publication of the advertisement, often obtained within days given the fast-moving commercial harm, with the final disparagement question decided later at trial.
An undertaking given to the court to withdraw or modify an advertisement is strictly enforced. Releasing a 'revised' advertisement that a court finds creates no perceptible difference in overall impact from the original can expose the advertiser to contempt proceedings, not just a fresh injunction application, as recently illustrated in the Gillette India v. Visage Lines Personal Care, the parent of Bombay Shaving Company, dispute over its 'Switch4' razor campaign before the Delhi High Court.
Brands should build legal review of comparative and rival-referencing campaigns into the release process, testing the manner of the comparison (mocking versus merely favourable), the factual accuracy of any claims made, and whether a rival's mark or trade dress is used beyond what an honest comparison actually requires.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a business legally claim its product is better than a competitor's?
Yes. Truthful comparative claims, sometimes called puffery, are lawful in India, provided the manner of comparison does not ridicule or falsely denigrate the rival's goods.
When does a comparative ad cross into actionable disparagement?
When it ridicules or falsely denigrates a rival's goods in a manner bordering on defamation, judged by the overall impact of the advertisement on an ordinary consumer rather than isolated words or frames.
What happens if a company releases a 'revised' ad after undertaking to withdraw the original?
If a court finds no perceptible difference in impact between the revised and original advertisements, the company can face contempt proceedings for breaching its undertaking, in addition to any fresh injunction application.
References & Further Reading
This article references the following statute, regulations and a recent tribunal decision. Case details have been cross-checked against more than one published source at the time of writing; readers should verify the exact order date and citation against the official NCLAT record for any specific matter.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 30(1).
- The established line of Indian disparagement case law on puffery versus denigration bordering on defamation.
- See our Legal News coverage of the Gillette v. Bombay Shaving Company contempt order and our Intellectual Property practice page for further detail.