Mumbai: In a significant development in the paints industry, the Bombay High Court has restrained the circulation of an advertisement released by Berger Paints India, observing that the commercial appeared to cross the line from permissible comparative advertising into product disparagement.
Justice Arif S Doctor, in an ad-interim order dated May 8, held that Asian Paints had established a prima facie case, warranting immediate relief.
Dispute Triggered by Viral Campaign
The legal dispute stems from a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Asian Paints against multiple parties, including Berger Paints India and Namgial Enterprise. According to court submissions cited in reports, Asian Paints became aware of the advertisement on May 5, when a 102-second video titled “Drishyam Series – Episode 1” began circulating across WhatsApp groups within the dealer and trade ecosystem before surfacing on Instagram.
While the advertisement did not explicitly name Asian Paints, the company argued that the product packaging featured in the video made the rival brand identifiable.
Asian Paints contended that the commercial positioned Berger’s Easy Clean product as superior in stain resistance while portraying its own Apcolite Shyne All Protek paint as ineffective. A demonstration involving a lipstick stain was highlighted as misleading, with the rival product shown failing to deliver comparable performance.
The company further argued that the narrative and visual treatment of the advertisement went beyond objective comparison and instead sought to undermine the reputation of its product.
Court Observations on Disparagement
Taking note of the content, the court observed that certain elements of the advertisement—particularly the appearance of the word “Fraud!” during the demonstration—contributed to a case of disparagement when assessed in totality.
Justice Doctor also acknowledged concerns raised by Asian Paints regarding the possibility of a broader campaign rollout. The title “Episode 1” suggested that additional instalments could follow, potentially amplifying reputational harm.
The court observed that the rapid circulation of the video through messaging platforms and social media had the potential to cause significant and possibly irreversible damage to the plaintiff’s brand equity.
Asian Paints sought immediate interim relief without prior notice to the defendants, arguing that advance intimation could enable further dissemination of the content. The court accepted this position, noting the speed at which such material can spread online.
Accordingly, the court restrained Berger Paints India, Namgial Enterprise, and other associated parties—as well as unidentified individuals named in the suit—from publishing, sharing, or distributing the advertisement or any similar content.
Social media platforms named in the proceedings were also directed to take down the video. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 22, with the interim order remaining in effect until June 23.
The case highlights the fine line brands must navigate when deploying comparative advertising strategies. While Indian law permits comparison between competing products, courts have consistently drawn boundaries where such communication turns disparaging or damages a competitor’s goodwill. The ruling also underscores the growing role of digital and social media platforms in amplifying commercial disputes, where rapid content dissemination can trigger urgent legal intervention.
