Hindustan Unilever Limited V. Abbott Laboratories & Ors.

Introduction

In a recent judgment by the Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) v. Abbott Laboratories & Ors, dated September 5, 2024, the court granted temporary relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited in its copyright infringement claim against Abbott Laboratories. This order restrains Abbott Laboratories from circulating advertisements that allegedly disparage HUL’s products in the market.

The key legal issue examined by the court was whether the advertisements released by Abbott Laboratories disparaged the petitioner, HUL’s, products.

Arguments Of The Plaintiff

It was argued on behalf of Hindustan Unilever Ltd., that the company’s products especially Horlicks Diabetes Plus in the advertisements of Abbott is deliberate and not coincidental and operating in the same business sector, the Defendants could have very well used any unbranded product or goods with plain packaging instead of Plaintiff’s products which were allegedly disparaged in order to create a bias in the minds of the viewers.

Additionally, the Plaintiff had also approached the Defendant and its subsidiary companies to seek clarification and initiated this cease-and-desist action only after receiving no satisfactory response.

Court’s Judgment And Analysis

While delivering the present judgment, Justice R.I Chagla rightly observed that there was a strong prima facie case against the defendants for the grant of ad – interim relief in the present petition and the ‘balance of convenience’ was in favour of the plaintiff. Additionally, in case the present injunction would not have been granted against the defendant, the plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury and harm in terms of its market standing and product reputation which could not be compensated in terms of money.

Additionally, the court also noted that it is a settled law that a tradesman is already entitled to declare his/her goods as best in the market or to say that his goods are better than those of his competitors but while doing so, the tradesman is not entitled to directly or indirectly say that his competitor’s goods are bad or inferior to his own goods. In case such practices are resorted by the tradesman, this would amount to slandering the goods and reputation of his competitor and cause defamation which is not permissible.

The present judgment is a landmark example of instances wherein the judiciary has been prompt in granting relief against disparaging and defamatory advertisements which can often potentially lead to loss of business and reputation of the plaintiffs. Moreover, this judgment has also paved an appropriate distinction between the rights of tradesmen to portray their products as superior or best in the market while also ensuring that their advertisements or portrayal does not harm the business interests or reputation of other brands including their competitors leading to a thin line of difference between defamation cum disparagement and rightful marketing.

Last but not the least, in a volatile industry such as FMCG (Fast Moving Consumer Goods) industry where brand perception and market standing plays a huge role in the profitability and sales of the companies, the court has upheld the rights of the parties to ensure that they do not face any unjust defamation or violation of their rights in name of marketing or product promotion.