The Bombay High Court has restrained the circulation of a Berger Paints advertisement after observing that the campaign appeared to cross the line between comparative advertising and product disparagement against rival company Asian Paints.
Justice Arif S Doctor, in an ad-interim order passed on May 8, said Asian Paints had made a prima facie case against the advertisement released by Berger Paints India Ltd and associated parties.
The dispute centred around a 102-second promotional video titled “Drishyam Series – Episode 1”, which was allegedly circulated widely through WhatsApp groups involving paint dealers and trade members before also appearing on Instagram.
According to Asian Paints, the commercial compared Berger’s “Easy Clean” paint product with its “Apcolite Shyne All Protek” paint using a stain-removal demonstration. While the advertisement did not directly mention Asian Paints by name, the company argued that the product packaging shown in the video was identifiable enough for viewers to recognise the rival brand.
Asian Paints claimed the campaign portrayed Berger’s paint as superior while depicting its own product as ineffective during a lipstick stain test. The company further argued that the “myth buster” format and sensational presentation were intended to damage consumer trust and goodwill associated with its brand.
The court took particular note of a scene in which the word “Fraud!” appeared in meme format after the demonstration, observing that the advertisement prima facie amounted to disparagement rather than permissible comparative advertising.
Justice Doctor also accepted Asian Paints’ concern that more such advertisements could follow, especially because the video was labelled as “Episode 1”. The court said the online circulation of the clip had the potential to cause “immense and irreversible prejudice” to the plaintiff’s reputation and product goodwill.
Accepting the urgency of the matter, the court granted interim relief without prior notice to the defendants, observing that advance warning could have led to wider dissemination of the advertisement before legal restraint could be imposed.
The court has now restrained the defendants and unidentified parties from sharing, broadcasting or circulating the disputed video or similar content. Social media platforms named in the case were also directed to remove the advertisement from their platforms.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 22, while the interim relief will continue till June 23.