Judicial Considerations Specific to the Food and Beverage Sector in Indian Cases of Trademark Disparagement through Comparative Advertising
Authors/Creators
- 1. Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur
Description
This paper examines trademark disparagement through comparative advertising in the food and beverage (F&B) sector. Comparative advertising leads to legal disputes when it disparages trademarks. A gap in the current literature on this subject is the lack of detailed, sector-specific guidance for India’s F&B sector. This gap is important because the sector relies heavily on brand perception. However, existing research has not sufficiently addressed how the judiciary has treated the unique challenges of comparative advertising in this field. The objective of this paper is to identify the factors that Indian courts consider in trademark disparagement cases through comparative advertising in the F&B sector. It also offers some suggestions for legislative reform and recommendations for F&B businesses on comparative advertising practices. The paper adopts a doctrinal methodology, analysing relevant legal principles, statutory provisions, judicial tests, and case laws such as PepsiCo v. Hindustan Coca-Cola (2003) and HUL v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (2017). The findings of this paper are that courts consider the nutritional and health impacts, product presentation, expert backing, marketing, and experiential attributes when adjudicating trademark disparagement cases arising from comparative advertising in the F&B sector.
Files
Paper 2.pdf
Files
(291.6 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:a144584ba5b9be6c56db00689fa0455b
|
291.6 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
References
- Ahuja, V. K. (2017). Law relating to intellectual property rights (3rd ed.). LexisNexis. Bafna, P. (2018). Few Indian case studies on legal aspects of comparative advertising. IJCRT, 6(1). Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2004). Intellectual Property Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. Black, H. C. (1968). Black's Law Dictionary (Rev. 4th ed.). West Publishing Co. https://blacfoundation.org/pdf/Black's-Law-4th-edition-1891.pdf. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Comparative advertising. In Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved September 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/comparative-advertising. Code for Self-Regulation of Advertising Content in India, ch. IV (1985). Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Hindustan Unilever, 137 DRJ 361 (2013). Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2019, § 2(47) (India). Dabur India v. Colortek Meghalaya, 42 PTC 88 (2010). De Landtsheer Emmanuel SA v. Comité Interprofessionnel du Vin de Champagne and Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin SA, Case C-381/05, (2007) E.C.R. I-3115. Desai, D. R. (2012). From trademarks to brands. Florida Law Review, 64, 981. Directive 2006/114/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 concerning misleading and comparative advertising (codified version). (2006). Official Journal of the European Union, L376, 21–27. India. (1950). The Constitution of India. Gitte, A. (2023). Analysis of advertising regulations for consumer protection in India. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6, 57. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd v. Heinz India Private Ltd and Ors, MANU/WB/0450/2006 (2006). Gogisetti, V. N. R. (2021). Comparative advertising – Boon or bane to consumer interest? ASEAN Journal of Legal Studies. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., (2017) SCC OnLine Bom 2572. Havells India v. Amritanshu Khaitan, CS(OS) 107/2015 (2015). Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Abbott Laboratories and Ors, MANU/MHOR/14923/2024 (2024). Hindustan Unilever v. Reckitt Benckiser, 1 CHN 286 (2013). Horlicks Limited and Ors v. Zydus Wellness Products Limited, MANU/DE/1046/2020 (2020). Horlicks Ltd and Ors v. Heinz India Pvt Ltd, MANU/DE/0944/2019 (2019). Kulkarni, S. R. (2018). Chapter 15: IPRs in respect to food and beverages. In Innovations in technologies for fermented food and beverage industries. Springer. Mamgain, & Chaudhary, S. (2025, September 12). Generic brand disparagement. Bar and Bench. https://www.barandbench.com/view-point/generic-brand-disparagement Marico Limited v. Adani Wilmar Ltd, MANU/DE/0933/2013 (2013). Mawandiya, S. K. (2022). Compare, not disparage: Analysing the grey area in trademark law. International Journal of Law, Management & Humanities, 5, 1446. Patil, A. R., & Patil, A. A. (2018). International legal framework on comparative advertising in European Union, United States and India – A contemplative comparative study. International Journal on Consumer Law and Practice, 6(5). Pepsi Co., Inc. and Others v. Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd. and Another, (Del 2003). Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John's International, Inc., 227 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2000). Raj, P., & Noorani, M. S. (2020). Legal implications of comparative advertisement in India. International Journal of Management, 11(12), 3624–3634. Reckitt & Colman India v. M P Ramachandram, PTC (19) 741 (Cal.) (1999). San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Ors, MANU/DE/2962/2025 (2025). Sen, I. (2019). Comparative advertisement and trademark infringement: A comparative analysis. IJLSI, 1(2). Shafiulla, B. (2013). Comparative advertising: An analysis of cases of disparagement. The IUP Journal of Marketing Management, 12(2), 62–71. Snow, N. (2016). Free speech & disparaging trademarks. Boston College Law Review, 57, 1639. Tata Press Ltd v. Mahangar Telephone Nigam Ltd, AIR (SC) 2438 (1995). Trademark Act of 1946, §43 (United States). Trademarks Act, No. 47 of 1999, §§ 29(8), 30(1) (India). UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising and Direct & Promotional Marketing of 2010 (United Kingdom). Unibic Biscuits India Pvt Ltd v. Britannia Industries Limited, MANU/KA/0240/2008 (2008). Warrier, N. A., & Saxena, B. (2024). An analysis of comparative advertisement and trademark law in India. International Journal of Humanities Education, 12(2). Zydus v. Dabur, SCC OnLine Del 2664 (2023).