Scribd
Upload
2K views

Case Study MRTP Act

Colgate Palmolive filed a complaint against Hindustan Lever regarding advertisements for its new toothpaste Pepsodent. [1] The advertisements claimed Pepsodent was 102% better than the leading toothpaste in killing germs. [2] While the voice said the leading toothpaste, the boy's mouth movements indicated he said "Colgate" and the ad used a similar jingle to Colgate's. [3] Colgate alleged the ads violated the MRTP Act by disparaging Colgate and giving the false impression that Pepsodent was superior to Colgate.

Uploaded by

Amit Jaglan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views

Case Study MRTP Act

Colgate Palmolive filed a complaint against Hindustan Lever regarding advertisements for its new toothpaste Pepsodent. [1] The advertisements claimed Pepsodent was 102% better than the leading toothpaste in killing germs. [2] While the voice said the leading toothpaste, the boy's mouth movements indicated he said "Colgate" and the ad used a similar jingle to Colgate's. [3] Colgate alleged the ads violated the MRTP Act by disparaging Colgate and giving the false impression that Pepsodent was superior to Colgate.

Uploaded by

Amit Jaglan
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Case Study- MRTP act 1969

Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited vs M/s. Hindustan Lever

The first respondent, Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. manufactures Colgate Dental Cream. The
appellant too has various brands of tooth paste but we are concerned here with the New
Pepsodent' toothpaste introduced by the appellant recently into the market. The appellant had
given advertisement in the print, visual, and boarding media, claiming that its toothpaste "new
Pepsodent" was "102 % better than the leading toothpaste". The advertisement contains a
"schematic' picture supposedly of samples of saliva It depicts on one side of the advertisement a
pictorial representation of the germs in a sample taken from the mouth of a person hours after
brushing with "the leading toothpaste." And another pictorial representation is or the germs from
a similar sample taken from the mouth of another person using the "New Pepsodent". The former
shows large number of germs remaining in the sample of salive where the leading toothpaste is
used and the latter shows almost neglible quantity of germs in the sample of salive where New
Pepsodent' is used. The advertisement also speaks of tests conducted at the Hindustan L ever
Dental Research Centre and says that the appellant's product is based on a Germ check formula
which is twice as effective on germs as the leading toothpaste and that it was, in fact, 102%
better in fighting germs. In the TV advertisement of the appellant, two boys are asked the name
of the toothpaste with which they had brushed their teeth in the morning. The advertisement
shows Pepsodent 102% superior in killing germs which is being used by one of the by. So far as
the other boy is concerned, who is using another toothpaste which is inferior in killing germs, the
lip movements according to the respondents, indicated that the boy was using "Colgate " though
the voice is muted. Additionally, when this muting is done there is a sound of the same jingle as
is used in the usual Colgate- advertisement, leaving, according to the complainants,. doubts in
the minds of the viewers that "pepsodent" was being compared with Colgate.

On these and other allegations, the complaint was filed by the respondents before the
Commission relying upon Sections 10, 36A and 36B of the Act and in particular upon Section
36A (viii) and (x) of the Act.

Facts of the case

• Plaintiff company : Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited , manufacturers of Colgate Dental


Cream.

• Defendant : M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited manufacturers of New Pepsodent dental cream

Allegation : Advertisement campaign of the defendant regarding its dental cream New
pepsodent disparaging the leading toothpaste namely Colgate Dental Cream manufactured by
Plaintiff.

• A jingle used in the background of the ad which closely resembled that of Colgate
Palmolive India’s jingle.
• In the ad when the child using the leading toothpaste is questioned, he mouthed out the
words Colgate which was clearly visible.

• HLL claimed 102% anti-bacterial superiority over the leading brand, however their
advertisements gave an overall impression of being better than the leading brand in
dental care.

Questions for discussion-

1. Discuss whether you will apply MRTP act 1969 to the above case?
2. What terms and conditions under MRTP are being violated according to you?

You might also like