Scribd
Upload
255 views3 pages

Misleading Ads: Key Indian Cases

This document discusses misleading advertisements in India and summarizes some key court cases related to this issue. It describes a case where Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. sued Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. for a liquid shoe polish advertisement claiming it contained more wax than competitors. The court restricted Kiwi from distributing the misleading advertisement. It also summarizes a case where General Motors was sued for misleading advertisements claiming a vehicle was an SUV, when it was actually a passenger car not suitable for off-roading as advertised. The courts ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a refund for misleading advertising. In general, the document discusses how misleading advertisements are still common in India despite laws against them, and outlines

Uploaded by

kapil shrivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
255 views3 pages

Misleading Ads: Key Indian Cases

This document discusses misleading advertisements in India and summarizes some key court cases related to this issue. It describes a case where Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. sued Kiwi T.T.K. Ltd. for a liquid shoe polish advertisement claiming it contained more wax than competitors. The court restricted Kiwi from distributing the misleading advertisement. It also summarizes a case where General Motors was sued for misleading advertisements claiming a vehicle was an SUV, when it was actually a passenger car not suitable for off-roading as advertised. The courts ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a refund for misleading advertising. In general, the document discusses how misleading advertisements are still common in India despite laws against them, and outlines

Uploaded by

kapil shrivastava
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Most of us are aware that many of the claims made by companies in their advertisements are not

wholly true. Pictures of flawlessly turned-out models in cosmetics ads and weight-loss commercials
are obvious examples. Hidden fees and surcharges, and terms and conditions in ads of financial
products often speak what their ads do not. Yet, we cannot deny the fact that misleading
advertisements continue to influence us and many a times persuade us into making a purchase.

Some of the major cases of misleading advertisement in India are:

 General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & ANR.i
 Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K. LTD.ii
 Dabur India Ltd v. Emami Limitediii
 Dabur India Ltd v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltdiv
 Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. v

 Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K. LTD . - The plaintiff company is engaged in
manufacture and sale of consumer products and one of the products of the plaintiff is liquid shoe
polish being manufactured and marketed by them under the name and style of Cherry Blossom
Premium Liquid Wax Polish. Defendant is also engaged in the manufacture of polish and one of
the brand being manufactured and marketed by the defendant is "KIWI" brand of liquid polish. 

The defendant with a view to promote its product is displaying an advertisement through the
electronic media. The advertisement of the defendant shows a bottle of "KIWI". From which the
word "KIWI" is written on white surface which does not drip as against another bottle described
as "OTHERS" which drips.

The main contention raised by the plaintiff in the instant case is that the claim of the defendant in
the advertisement, stating that the defendant product KIWI contained more wax than any other
liquid polishes available in the market, was an unsubstantiated claim which was completely false
and misleading.

The court through its order restrained the defendant from in any manner printing, circulating or
distributing the point of sale poster at the consumer outlets or in any market place.
 General Motors (India) Pvt. Ltd. v Ashok Ramnik Lal Tolat & ANR - Ashok Ramniklal Tolat, a
seventy-year-old man with a passion for driving, wanted to buy a sports-utility vehicle (SUV) to
make his dream trips to Ladakh, Kashmir and Nepal with his wife. Impressed by Chevrolet
Forester’s tagline, An SUV to beat all SUVs, he bought the vehicle. He paid Rs 14 lakh and spent
another Rs 2 lakh on it to prepare it for his travels. As it turned out, within a few months the rains
began in Mumbai and the supposed offroader refused to wade through the water. It was then that
Tolat doubted his vehicle’s capabilities – specifically the all-terrain capabilities that the company
brochure and ads had claimed. Another surprise was in store: a service engineer showed Tolat the
car manual in which it was clearly stated that the vehicle was a ‘passenger car’.

The district consumer forum ordered in favour of complainant then the case was filled by the
defendant at the state commission. The Commission held that the vehicle had no mechanical or
manufacturing defect, but the advertisement that the car was an SUV amounted to ‘unfair trade
practice’. Still aggrieved, Tolat did not hesitate in challenging the State Forum’s order at the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. After a thorough review of the case, the National
Commission ordered in favour of Tolat and directed the company to refund a sum of Rs 1,250,000
(twelve lakh and fifty thousand rupees) to the consumer. The final operative order passed by the
Supreme Court reversed the order of the National Commission with regard to the punitive damages.
The National Commission has gone much beyond its jurisdiction in awarding the relief which was
neither sought in the complaint nor before the State Commission.
i
[Civil Appeal Nos. 80728073 of 2009
ii
Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Kiwi T.T.K., 1996 P.T.C. 193 T 399
iii
Dabur India Ltd v. Emami Limited, 2004 (29) P.T.C. 1
iv
Dabur India Ltd v. Colgate Palmolive India Ltd., 2004 (29) P.T.C. 401
v
AIR1965SC1167; [1965]2SCR192

You might also like