The Bombay High Court has held that where a comparative advertisement, viewed as a whole in its intent, manner, storyline and messaging, does not merely promote the advertiser’s product but directly identifies and runs down the rival product as inferior, misleading or fraudulent, a prima facie case of disparagement is made out warranting injunctive relief. Further, where such material is being circulated clandestinely through WhatsApp and social media, the Court may grant ex parte ad-interim relief if notice is likely to defeat the purpose of the injunction and permit further reputational harm.
The Court there restrained the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from circulating, sharing, broadcasting or otherwise communicating the impugned advertisement or any similar advertisement disparaging or denigrating Asian Paints (plaintiff’s) product. The Court also directed the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to recall, delete and take down the impugned advertisement from all platforms. The matter was listed on 22 June 2026, and the order was to continue until 23 June 2026.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Arif Doctor having considered the submissions, viewed the clip and the plaint, and observed that a “clear case of disparagement” was made out prima facie. The Single Judge specifically noted the dramatic opening statements in the impugned advertisement, the side-by-side display of the plaintiff’s product with BERGER EASY CLEAN, the statement that the plaintiff’s product “claims stain resistance, but is actually just washable”, the narrated result of the stain test, and the meme using the words “Fraud!”.
The Bench observed that the title “Drishyam Series – Episode 1” justified the plaintiff’s serious apprehension that more such disparaging advertisements may follow. It accepted that circulation through WhatsApp and social media had the potential to cause immense and irreversible prejudice to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation and to its product.
The Bench held that the plaintiff had made out a case for grant of ex parte ad-interim relief, as having regard to the clandestine manner in which the impugned advertisement was being circulated through WhatsApp groups and social media platforms, giving notice to the defendants before passing the order would defeat the very purpose of granting ad-interim reliefs.
Briefly, the plaintiff, Asian Paints, moved for ex parte ad-interim injunction against acts of disparagement, denigration and slander in relation to the plaintiff’s product, APCOLITE SHYNE ALL PROTEK emulsion. The grievance concerned a video clip / advertisement allegedly circulated by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 on WhatsApp and Instagram, comparing the plaintiff’s product with BERGER EASY CLEAN, the product of Defendant No. 3.
The plaintiff stated that it is a long-standing paint company and that APCOLITE SHYNE ALL PROTEK was introduced around 2020 as an advanced stain-resistant interior paint solution and had gained significant market acceptance. According to the plaintiff, on 5 May 2026 its Senior Manager (Legal) was informed by several representatives that an AV commercial titled “Drishyam Series – Episode No. 1” was being widely circulated on WhatsApp.
The impugned advertisement was said to be circulating on WhatsApp and Instagram, not mainstream media. It was 102 seconds long and presented as a demonstration/comparison between APCOLITE SHYNE ALL PROTEK and BERGER EASY CLEAN, allegedly conveying that the plaintiff’s product was inferior in quality and performance and discouraging its use. The WhatsApp message described Easy Clean as showing “superior stain resistance vs competition paints”, said it showed “the truth behind paints”, and called Easy Clean “India’s Only Stain Resistance Paint.” The plaintiff contended that these words suggested competing paints did not truly achieve stain resistance and that the messaging was false, misleading, denigrating and disparaging.
The advertisement also used statements such as “This is not just a product video. This is a myth buster video”, “Everyone believes washable paint means stain cleanability”, and “But the truth is – WASHABLE ≠ STAIN RESISTANCE.” The plaintiff’s case was that this denigrated an entire class of paint products and created a negative perception by “myth busting.” The video visually placed the plaintiff’s APCOLITE SHYNE ALL PROTEK product next to BERGER EASY CLEAN while the voice-over said: “On one side BERGER EASY CLEAN, a true stain resistant paint. On the other, a competition paint that claims stain resistance, but is actually just washable.” The plaintiff argued that, despite not being named verbally, the plaintiff’s product was directly identified visually and was portrayed as falsely advertised and not truly stain-resistant.
The advertisement then showed a lipstick stain test on both products, after which the voice-over said of BERGER EASY CLEAN that the stain disappears completely, but on the “competition paint”, “the truth is visible. The colour marks stays. The stain stays.” The plaintiff’s case was that this directly portrayed its product as substandard, ineffective and inferior.
The plaintiff argued that the impugned advertisement did not merely puff up Defendant No. 3’s product but ran down the plaintiff’s product as ineffective, deceptive and fraudulent, thereby crossing the permissible boundaries of comparative advertising. The plaintiff also pressed urgency on the basis that the advertisement was being circulated clandestinely through WhatsApp groups and social media, and that notice would lead to further dissemination before an injunction could be passed.
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Hiren Kamod, Advocate a/w. Vinod Bhagat, Prachi Shah, Apeksha Mehta, Aishwarya Lad, Twisha Singh, and Prem Khullar, Advocates
