comparative advertising
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPARATIVE
ADVERTISING
Horlicks or Complan? the comparison war!!!
FILMA VARGHESETRADEMARK Department
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
DEFINITION
COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
The term ‘comparative advertising’ refers to any form of advertising in which a trademark owner attempts to enjoy pecuniary benefits from a comparison between his product, service, or brand and that of a compet itor.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Comparative advertising is a marketing strategy in which a company wants to show that its product or service is better than the competitors.
• They may explicitly name a com petitor or implicitly refer to him.
• They may either emphasize the similarities or the differences between the products.
• The comparisons can be vocal or visual.• The advertised brand can have a market
share smaller than, roughly equal to, or greater than the comparison brand.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
OBJECTIVES OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Evaluation of brand performance• To degrade the competitor’s
brand• Acceptance of brand• Convince users• Increases consumer’s information
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
IMPACT OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
• Influencing the perception of the consumer regarding a brand
• Current sales can be increased• Competitors brand loyalty can be
hampered• Shifting of consumers
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
LEGAL PROVISIONS OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING
Until it was repealed by the Competition Act 2002,
Section 36A(x) of the Monopolies and Restrictive
Trade Practices Act, 1984 provided a basis upon
which a claim could be made against disparagement
of goods. Section 36A(x) limited comparative
advertising by recognizing that the publishing of any
misleading or disparaging facts about a competitor’s
goods or services amounted to ‘unfair trade practice’.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
Comparative advertising shall be permitted when the following conditions
are met:• It is not misleading• It compares goods or services meeting the same needs or
intended for the same purpose• It objectively compares one or more material, relevant,
verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price.
• It does not create confusion in the market place between the advertiser and a competitor or between the advertiser’s trademarks, trade names, other distinguishing marks, goods or services and those of a competitor
• It does not take unfair advantage of the reputation of a trade mark, trade name, or other distinguishing marks of a competitor.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited v. Heinz India Private Limited and
Ors. 2007 (2) CHN 44.
HORLICKSHorlicks was invented by William Horlick (William) and his brother James Horlick (James) (1844-1921) in 1873. The brothers belonged to Gloucestershire, England.
COMPLANComplan, owned by the Heinz Company, was one of the most popular health drinks in India. The name Complan was coined from the words "COMplete" and "PLANned". Complan was introduced by Glaxo Laboratories (Glaxo) in the UK during World War II (1939-1945), as an essential nutritional supplement for soldiers at the frontlines.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISING WAR BETWEEN TWO POPULAR HEALTH DRINK BRANDS
HORLICKS AND COMPLAN IN INDIA .
• Supremacy between these two brands started as early as the 1960s.
• The brands were involved in aggressive comparative advertising in print and television over attributes such as ingredients, protein content, growth, and flavors.
• In late 2008, the makers of Horlicks, GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare, and the makers of Complan, Heinz India, came out with advertisements that directly compared the brands using the competitor brand's trademarks.
• The advertisements talked about how their respective brand was better than the other and showed the competitor's product in bad light when compared to the company's products.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
ADVERTISING WAR BETWEEN TWO POPULAR HEALTH DRINK BRANDS
HORLICKS AND COMPLAN IN INDIA .
• With constant mud-slinging at each other, the two companies decided to solve the issue in court.
• In September 2008, Heinz moved the Bombay High Court objecting to advertisements of Horlicks which highlighted the nutritional content and price gap between the two brands, and showed Horlicks as a better and more inexpensive health drink than Complan.
• The advertisement showed the competitor brand clearly while making the comparison. Heinz later followed up with its own ad comparing Horlicks unfavorably with Complan. This prompted GSK to file a case in the Delhi High Court in December 2008 claiming that the ad released by Heinz disparaged its brand by calling it low priced, and thereby damaging its reputation.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPLAN ADVERTISEMENT VS HORLICKS ADVERTISEMENT
.
First Suit – 2577 of 2008 (Glaxo v. Heinz)
The first suit pertains to two advertisements by Complan (Heinz). In
the first advertisement the ‘Complan Mummy’ tells the Horlicks Mom
that she’s compromising her child’s health by buying a product made
of cheap ingredients and that her (fat) child would not grow as fast
as a child who was fed Horlicks. The Complan mother then picks out
a Complan packet and explains how it has 23 vital ingredients which
would ensure fast growth of a child. The ad then shows the Horlicks
mother visibly pushing away a package bearing the Horlicks
trademark explaining how she had been misled and how she would
no longer repeat the same mistake again.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPLAN ADVERTISEMENT VS HORLICKS ADVERTISEMENT
.
Second Suit – 2646 of 2008 (Horlicks v. Heinz)
The second suit pertains to a print advertisement in
leading Delhi newspapers comparing the ingredients of
Complan and Horlicks with specific emphasis on the fact
that some of the ingredients in Horlicks are ‘cheap’ and
how a Child’s growth would be compromised by
consuming Horlicks. The advertisement also draws
attention to a scientific report by the National Institute of
Nutrition which substantiates the fact that Complan has
good ingredients etc.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
COMPLAN ADVERTISEMENT VS HORLICKS ADVERTISEMENT
.
Third Suit – 547 of 2010 (Heinz v. Glaxo)
This suit which was transferred from the Bombay High
Court to the Delhi High Court was filed by Complan
(Heinz) against Horlicks. This 30 seconds
advertisement placed both the products i.e. Complan &
Horlicks next to each other, compares the prices and
according to Heinz, passes disparaging comments
against the quality and nutritional value of Complan
when compared to Horlicks.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
THIS CASE WAS DESIGNED TO:
• Analyze the advertising strategies adopted by Complan and Horlicks over the years;
• Understand the issues and challenges faced by companies while using comparative advertising;
• Examine the efficacy of comparative advertising in enhancing brand image and sales;
• Study the implications of the advertising war between Complan and Horlicks;
• Discuss and debate the legal/ethical issues involved in the case.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
JUDGMENT.
• A trader can puff up his goods in comparison to his competitor’s goods but he cannot denigrate or disparage the competitor’s goods while doing so.
• It may be permissible to state that Product A is better than Product B it is not permissible to state that Product B is worse than Product A.
• Justice Bhat also draws a distinction between advertisements in different mediums i.e. print and television with the standard of judicial scrutiny being much higher in the latter than in the former. The reason for this according to Justice Bhat is the fact that television advertisements unlike print advertisements make an instant impact across consumer classes and the level of impact of such advertisements on the consumer is much greater than a print advertisement where each word has to be read, analyzed and understood. Advertisers therefore will have to tread much more carefully when creating comparative advertisements for television.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
JUDGMENT.
• In his order, Justice Bhat finds the two advertisements in the first suits as disparaging and beyond the realm of permissible puffing. The primary reason for this is that the repeated use of the word ‘cheap’ & ‘compromise’ along with the remaining insinuations would definitely harm the reputation of Horlicks.
• The advertisements in the second suit were held to be in the realm of puffing as they seem to be based on some scientific report, the validity of which could be established only during trial.
• The advertisement in the third suit were held to be in the realm of puffing. Justice Bhat did not agree with Complan’s allegation that the manner of comparison between both products disparaged its own product and held the same to be fair.
• All three suits pertain to commercial disparagement. Justice Bhat has very clearly ruled in favour of Horlicks since the ad-campaign against them was clearly disparaging and also ordered Complan to pay Horlicks costs of Rs. 2.2 Lakhs only.
CHENNAI3rd Floor, ‘Creative Enclave’,
148-150, Luz Church Road,Mylapore,
Chennai - 600 004.Tel: +91 - 44 - 2498 4821
BANGALORE Suite 920, Level 9,
Raheja Towers,26-27, M G Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.Tel: +91 - 80 - 6546 2400
COIMBATOREBB1, Park Avenue,
# 48, Race Course Road,Coimbatore - 641018.
Tel: +91 - 422 – 6552921
WEBSITE
www.altacit.com
THANK YOU