Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

347), all of which had been restrained by this Court.

12. Learned senior counsel for plaintiffs further stated that the defendant's impugned advertisement was violative of the previous orders passed by the ASCI. He pointed out that said orders had attained finality and the defendant was bound by such orders. The orders referred to by learned senior counsel for plaintiffs are as under:-

(i) The claim "Best Ever Formula Complan" was found by the ASCI to be misleading by implication that it was the best product as compared to other product formulae in the market (referred as X and Y).

26. Learned counsel for the defendant stated that the 2X appearing on the pack in the print advertisement of the present suit had been clarified as "2X faster growth clinically proven", which was a true, verifiable and sustainable claim. He stated that ASCI found the following comparison regarding the 2X absolute increase objectionable qua the following comparison . However, the depiction in front of the COMPLAN pack was not found to be misleading by ASCI.

27. Learned senior counsel for the defendant stated that the ASCI did not hold that comparison of COMPLAN per se with product X & Y or the use of the term "Growth Protein" to be objectionable. He contended that the ASCI held the use of the term "Growth Protein" along with comparison with product X and Y in the sentence "Naye best ever Complan ke ek cup me hain India ke do leading health drinks se bhi zyada growth protein" to be misleading only in conjunction with the unverifiable claim "Clinically Proven for 2X growth". He stated that the claim considered by the ASCI was a different claim and not the same as "2X Faster growth Clinically proven" as was depicted in front of the packaging of the defendant's product COMPLAN. He further stated that the term "Growth Protein" and the unverifiable claim "2X Faster growth Clinically proven" were not present in the impugned advertisement and the comparison made in the impugned advertisement was of the protein content in both products 'per serving' size which was a true, verifiable and accurate comparison.

"26. In the opinion of this Court, Comparative advertising is legal and permissible as it is in the interest of vigorous competition and public enlightenment. In fact, Chapter IV of the ASCI Code, relied upon by the plaintiffs, itself specifically deals with Comparative Advertising. The relevant portion of the ASCI Code reads as under:-

"CHAPTER IV To ensure that Advertisements observe fairness in competition such that the Consumer‟s need to be informed on choice in the Market- Place and the Canons of generally accepted competitive behaviour in Business are both served.