Horlicks Limited & Anr v Zydus Wellness Products Limited
⚖️ Case Title:
Horlicks Limited & Anr. v. Zydus Wellness Products Limited
Court: Delhi High Court
Date: 2019
Citation: CS(COMM) 287/2019
Subject: Comparative advertising, product disparagement, trademark law
🧾 Background / Facts:
Horlicks Ltd., a well-known manufacturer of health and nutrition drinks, filed a suit against Zydus Wellness, the maker of Complan, for a television commercial (TVC) and print advertisement that allegedly disparaged the Horlicks brand.
The Zydus advertisement compared Complan with Horlicks, claiming that “Complan has 2x growth nutrients vs. Horlicks.” It also visually showed Horlicks being inferior in terms of nutrients.
The commercial also contained imagery of children, indirectly suggesting that Horlicks was insufficient for a child’s healthy growth.
Horlicks claimed that the advertisement was false, misleading, and amounted to product disparagement, in violation of its trademark and goodwill.
🧩 Issues Before the Court:
Whether Zydus’s advertisement was a case of permissible comparative advertising or illegal disparagement?
Whether Horlicks was entitled to an injunction restraining Zydus from broadcasting/publishing the advertisement?
To what extent can a competitor refer to another brand in advertising under Indian law?
⚖️ Legal Provisions / Principles Involved:
Comparative Advertising – Permitted under law provided it is truthful, non-deceptive, and does not disparage the competitor's product.
Product Disparagement – Occurs when an advertisement goes beyond mere comparison and denigrates or belittles the competitor’s product.
Trademark Act, 1999 – Section 29 prohibits use of a trademark in a way that damages reputation or causes confusion.
Commercial Speech – Protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution but subject to reasonable restrictions, especially concerning misleading claims.
🧑⚖️ Arguments by Horlicks (Plaintiff):
The advertisement exaggerated the difference between Complan and Horlicks without scientific basis.
It directly named Horlicks, misrepresented nutritional facts, and suggested Horlicks was harmful or inadequate.
The visual depiction and language were mocking, intending to damage Horlicks’ reputation in the market.
Such an act amounts to malicious falsehood and is not protected as commercial speech.
🏛️ Arguments by Zydus (Defendant):
The advertisement only highlighted factual comparisons, which is permissible under comparative advertising laws.
There was no malice or intent to defame, and the comparison was based on nutrient content information from product labels.
Puffery and exaggeration are acceptable in advertisements, as long as they do not cross the line into disparagement.
The right to advertise includes the right to highlight one's own strengths, even if that involves comparing with a competitor.
📜 Judgment & Observations:
The Delhi High Court acknowledged that comparative advertising is not per se illegal and is part of legitimate commercial speech.
However, the right to compare does not include the right to disparage or mislead consumers.
The Court found that:
The advertisement did not objectively establish the claim of “2x growth nutrients.”
The tone and manner of the ad, including the visuals and messaging, crossed the line into disparagement.
Targeting a competitor by name and implying inferiority without adequate scientific backing is not protected.
The Court held that Zydus’s advertisement was misleading and disparaging, and thus liable to be restrained.
✅ Relief Granted:
The Court granted an interim injunction, restraining Zydus from broadcasting, publishing, or otherwise circulating the impugned advertisements.
Zydus was directed to modify or withdraw the advertisements to bring them in line with lawful comparative advertising standards.
🧠 Significance of the Case:
Sets boundaries for comparative advertising in India: While allowed, it must not mislead or disparage the competitor.
Emphasizes ethical advertising practices in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector.
Establishes that naming a competitor and making unverified claims in an ad invites legal consequences.
The case is a landmark precedent in balancing freedom of commercial speech with consumer protection and fair competition.
📚 Related Case Laws:
Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. (1996) – Laid down the test for permissible comparative advertising.
Dabur India Ltd. v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. (2004) – Comparative ads must not cross the line into ridicule.
Pepsi Co. v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. (2003) – Puffery is allowed, denigration is not.
Colgate Palmolive v. Hindustan Unilever (2013) – Courts must examine whether comparison is based on truth and not misleading.
📝 Conclusion:
The Horlicks v. Zydus case serves as a crucial benchmark in Indian advertising law. It reiterates that companies are free to highlight their product’s superiority, but they cannot falsely or unfairly disparage a competitor. The case strengthens consumer protection, maintains market fairness, and places a clear legal boundary on aggressive advertising strategies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments