Many people think that advertising a product means to sell it. But real aim of advertising is to make general public and potential buyers aware of goods, products and services available under a brand. Though, it must sell; making ads that coax audience to buy isn’t unethical at all.

However, what is ethical and what’s not; when the supreme authorities have altered the definitions altogether.

Comparative advertising

Comparative advertising is advertising where one party advertises his goods or services by comparing them with the goods or services of another party. Such other party is usually the competitor or the market leader of that good or service. The comparison is made with a view towards increasing the sales of the advertiser, either by suggesting that the advertiser’s product is of the same or a better quality to that of the compared product or by denigrating the quality of the compared product. It is termed as comparative advertising when a particular product, or service, specifically mentions a competitor by name.

Until here, the aim behind this concept is to allow honest (i.e. not misleading) comparison of the factors of one trader’s products with those of another; such a comparison will inevitably involve the use of the trade marks associated with the products in question. However, this goes beyond it.

No Indian statute defines the term, but the UK Regulation defines comparative advertising as meaning any advertisement which “explicitly or by implication, identifies a competitor or goods or services offered by a competitor”.

In this backdrop, the Delhi High Court summarized the law on the subject in the case of Reckitt & Colman v. Kiwi TTK , as follows:

1. A tradesman is entitled to declare his goods to be the best in the world, even though the declaration is untrue.

2. He can also say that his goods are better than his competitor’s, even though such statement is untrue.

3. For the purpose of saying that his goods are the best in the world or his goods are better than his competitor’s he can even compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others.

4. He, however, cannot while saying his goods are better than his competitors’, say that his competitors’ goods are bad. If he says so, he really slanders the goods of his competitors. In other words he defames his competitors and their goods, which is not permissible.

5. If there is no defamation to the goods or to the manufacturer of such goods no action lies, but if there is such defamation an action lies and if an action lies for recovery of damages for defamation, then the Court is also competent to grant an order of injunction restraining repetition of such defamation.

What are your views on these?

Here is more about comparitive advertising and some case studies.