Battery maker to also advertise on electronic media without comparative features of rivals during the upcoming IPL matches
As Light Emitting Diode or LED bulbs are fast emerging as a popular replacement to conventional CFL bulbs, the competition among rival manufacturers is turning fierce with industry biggie Havells India dragging smaller rival Eveready Industries to court over a comparative advertisement.
The Delhi High court has ruled in favour of Eveready allowing the Kolkata-headquarted battery maker to continue with its advertisements featuring brand ambassador Akshay Kumar that uses a chart pointing out the comparative features of the manufacturers - Havells, Philips, Bajaj, Halonix, Surya and Syska - to claim that Eveready gives the brightest light at a competitive price.
"It is apparent that the impugned advertising campaign is not misleading and there is no denigration or disparagement of plaintiff's mark. Further, the factors compared are material, relevant, verifiable and representative features. Consequently, present application is dismissed," the court said in its ruling, a copy of which is available with dna.
Havells clearly is not happy. "We are in process of challenging this decision in an appeal," a spokesperson of Havells told dna when asked about the court ruling.
What's more, Eveready is also free to air a related advertisement on electronic media, which, however doesn't uses the comparative features of products of the rival manufacturers.
"During the course of hearing, the advertising campaign launched by the defendants on the television channels was shown to this court. The advertising campaign launched by the defendants on the television is not comparative advertising in as much as it does not mention the name of any of the rivals in the trade, including that of the plaintiffs. Consequently, present application, being bereft of merits is dismissed," Justice Manmohan said.
"We plan to air the advertisement on TV during the ensuing Indian Premier League matches," an elated official of Eveready said.
So, what was the contentious aspect of the advertisement?
The major point of argument was that the comparison of the different product attributes is centered around the relative lumens, which in simple terms a measure of total amount of visible light from a light source. The higher the lumen rating the "brighter" the lamp will appear.
The advertisement, Havells argued, haven't compared other parameters like life of the LED bulbs or the power factor.
Eveready in turn argued that lumens alone is the measure of brightness, the most important feature of a bulb as it is meant to dispel darkness.
As for other parameters not being included, Eveready argued that it has compared those common features mentioned in all competitors' packaging.
Justice Manmohan also commented on the desirability of comparative advertising, saying it is in the interest of "vigorous competition and public enlightenment".
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}