{"id":324,"date":"2020-04-23T10:29:48","date_gmt":"2020-04-23T10:29:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?p=324"},"modified":"2021-01-17T11:59:16","modified_gmt":"2021-01-17T11:59:16","slug":"comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/","title":{"rendered":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong> Deepti Verma &#038; Harsha | Dr. Ram ManoharLohiya National Law University, Lucknow | 9th November 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_47_1 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"ez-toc-toggle-icon-1\"><label for=\"item-6a2261ec5697b\" aria-label=\"Table of Content\"><span style=\"display: flex;align-items: center;width: 35px;height: 30px;justify-content: center;direction:ltr;\"><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #999;color:#999\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/label><input  type=\"checkbox\" id=\"item-6a2261ec5697b\"><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#INTRODUCTION\" title=\"INTRODUCTION\">INTRODUCTION<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_OF_COMPARATIVE_ADVERTISING\" title=\"LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING: \">LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING: <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#CONSTITUTION_OF_INDIA_AND_COMPARATIVE_ADVERTISEMENT\" title=\"CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT \">CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#JUDICIAL_PERSPECTIVE\" title=\" JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE\"> JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#SHIFT_IN_PARADIGM_SUSTANTIAL_PROOF_REQUIRED_FOR_PUFFERY\" title=\"SHIFT IN PARADIGM: SUSTANTIAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR PUFFERY \">SHIFT IN PARADIGM: SUSTANTIAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR PUFFERY <\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-4'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#CONCLUSION\" title=\"CONCLUSION \">CONCLUSION <\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"INTRODUCTION\"><\/span><strong>INTRODUCTION<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Advertisement plays a pivotal role in influencing consumers and stimulating the sale of the product. Globalization and Liberalization have increased the competition so much that every company wants to advertise its product to survive and remain in the race of competition. Everyday multiple players in the market come up with innovative tactics to show their product as superior to others and make every possible effort to come up with one of the best ways to disseminate information to its consumers. It is human psychology that consumers are attracted towards the more advertised product so each company advertises its product in the best possible way to boost the sale of its product in the market. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Advertising where products of one trader is compared with products of other trader is called comparative advertising. The crux of comparative advertising is well defined in the old slogan \u201cAnything his can do, mine can do better\u201d. According to Jack Bowen, President of Benton &#038; Bowels, \u201ccomparative advertising positions a product within a specific category, so that consumers can relate to that product or category\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn1\">[1]<\/a>. It increases consumer&#8217;s knowledge and awareness about the nature and quality of the whole range of products that are compared promotes competition[2] and helps consumers in making an informed decision. Comparative advertising generally consists of two components, Puffery and Denigration. Puffing is exaggerated advertising, blustering and boasting, on which no reasonable buyer would rely and is not actionable. It may also consist of a general claim of superiority over comparable goods that is so vague that it will be understood as merely the seller\u2019s expression of opinion. Even if the advertisement is puffed up with malice against the competitor, it doesn\u2019t give rise to any actionable claim. On the other hand, if a tradesman says his competitor\u2019s product is inferior to his product, it amounts to denigration. He lends himself in trouble as defaming competitor\u2019s goods is not permissible under law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Part II of the paper highlights the existing statutory and non-statutory provisions dealing with comparative advertising. Part III examines the constitutional perspective towards the same. Part IV and V deal with the judicial aspect i.e. the stand taken by the judiciary during the initial phase of liberalization and shift in its perspective with the passage of time. Part VI concludes the paper emphasizing the lacunae in the existing legal framework and suggests remedial measures that are needed to be implemented. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"LEGAL_FRAMEWORK_OF_COMPARATIVE_ADVERTISING\"><\/span><strong>LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING<\/strong>: <span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Post liberalization the Indian economy underwent a significant change since it stepped up towards opening up of markets from a state-controlled economy which resulted in the advent of a wider range of products coming in the market that led to cut-throat competition among companies. With the increasing competition, the companies started to show their products best in the eyes of consumers in comparison with others. Such behavior led to the dissemination of untruthful information to the consumers. To regulate such comparative advertising, a chapter on \u2018Unfair Trade Practices\u2019 was introduced in the MRTP Act in 1984, just a few years before liberalization. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Act \u00a0was enacted in 1969 to \u201censure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of economic power to the common detriment and to prohibit such monopolistic and restrictive trade practices as are prejudicial to the public interest.\u201d[3] As the country stepped up towards liberalization, the government made some significant changes in the act to make it conducive to the changing state of affairs. One of such amendment was the addition of Sec 36 A defining unfair trade practices in the comparative advertisement to protect consumers from untruthful and misleading claims.[4] Unfair trade practice means trade practice of making any statement which falsely represents that goods and services are of particular standard and gives public assurance of efficacy and usefulness of the product that is not based on the adequate test. But it couldn\u2019t survive for long and was repealed due to its inefficiency to deal with upcoming cases and to meet the need for modern competition problems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>MRTP Act was replaced with the Competition Act, 2002 with the intent to ensure efficient allocation of economic resources in the free competitive market. Later provisions of unfair trade practices were imported in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 from MRTP Act. Though it took into consideration the interest of consumers but couldn\u2019t provide much relief to sellers, manufacturers and service providers.<a href=\"#_ftn5\">[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>When India became a member state to the TRIPS agreement, the need for an appropriate law was felt that could give protection to one\u2019s trademark at the national and international levels. So the Trademark Act was passed in 2000 to increase the globalization of trade, promote investment, provide better protection to trademarks and to prevent fraudulent use of the mark.[6] Though TM Act doesn\u2019t use the word \u2018comparative advertising\u2019 specifically, it has a provision dealing with it under Sec 30(1). Comparative advertising is permissible under the act until it is in accordance with \u2018Honest Practices\u2019 and is not detrimental to the repute of other\u2019s trademark. The word \u2018Honest Practices\u2019 has not been defined by the act but the judiciary has interpreted the term in several cases.<a href=\"#_ftn7\">[7]<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The European court of justice also interpreted the term \u2018Honest Practice\u2019 as \u201cexpressing a duty to act fairly in relation to the legitimate interests of the trademark owner, and the aim as seeking to reconcile the fundamental interests of a trademark protection with those of free movement of goods and freedom to provide service in the common market.\u201d<a href=\"#_ftn8\">[8]<\/a> \u00a0To prove an advertisement as dishonest, one needs to establish that advertisement is untruthful and misleading to consumers. Despite the Trademark Act, the need for a uniform integrated legislation was felt in the market industry to enhance public confidence in advertisement and to ensure honesty and truthfulness in representations. Thus, a non-statutory body, Advertising Standard Council of India (ASCI), was adopted in 1986. ASCI is a self-imposed regulation in the advertising industry consisting of the Board of governors and Consumer Complaints Council. Chapter IV of ASCI deals with comparative advertising and states that a manufacturer can compare his product with others even by stating the name of his competitor\u2019s product provided:<a href=\"#_ftn9\">[9]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a0A. It is clear what aspects of the\nadvertiser\u2019s product are being compared with what aspect of the competitor\u2019s\nproduct.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a0B. The subject matter of comparison is not\nchosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser\nor so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered that is truly the case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>C.\nThe comparisons are factual, accurate and capable of substantiation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>D.\nThere is no likelihood of the consumer being misled as a result of the\ncomparison, whether about the product advertised or that with which it is compared.\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>E. \u201cHonest practice is satisfied when one cannot decipher a commercial relation between the registered proprietor of trademark and other person business.\u201d The advertisement doesn\u2019t unfairly denigrate, attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>These principles were designed to protect consumers from being misled or deceived by the advertising tactics of manufacturers. They also prescribe limit for puffery as to what extent a product can be puffed up and fall in the category of denigration. But due to a lack of enforcement mechanism to implement the above principles, its rules remain only recommendatory in nature. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"CONSTITUTION_OF_INDIA_AND_COMPARATIVE_ADVERTISEMENT\"><\/span><strong>CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND COMPARATIVE ADVERTISEMENT <\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution of India explicitly protects freedom of speech and expression. Advertising is also a form of speech that is used to disseminate information to persuade the consumer to buy a particular product. Initially, advertising was not included within the purview of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian constitution. Hamdard Dawakhana v. Union of India[10] court stated that although advertisements constituted a form of speech, they were not constitutive of the concept of \u201cfree speech\u201d as they were guided by the object of commercial gain in order to promote trade and commerce. \u201cThe advertisements in the instant case related to commerce or trade and not to propagating of ideas; and advertising of prohibited drugs or commodities of which the sale is not in the interest of the general public cannot be spoken within the meaning of freedom of speech and would not fall within Art. 19(1)(a).\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Subsequently\nin the case of <em>Tata Press Ltd. vs.\nMahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn11\">[11]<\/a>\nthe Hon\u2019ble Supreme court held that &#8220;commercial speech cannot be denied the\nprotection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution merely because the same is\nissued by businessmen\u201d. It further observed that advertisement is a mode of\ndisseminating information to consumers and gives substantial contribution to\nprint and electronic media organization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Hence, we can infer that commercial speech comes under the purview of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution and advertisement being a Commercial speech is protected under the same and certain restrictions has also been imposed by Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution. Commercial Speech which is untruthful, unfair, misleading, deceptive can be regulated or prohibited by the State under Article 19(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"JUDICIAL_PERSPECTIVE\"><\/span> <strong>JUDICIAL PERSPECTIVE<\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>With\nthe liberalization of the economy numerous cases were filed in the court\nregarding disparagement by competitors. Initially courts adopted very limited\napproach showing indifferent attitude towards consumers. It inclined to enhance\nthe competition in the market by allowing companies to puff up their claims\nwithout any substantial proof to support the same. The first issue regarding\ncomparative advertising came before the court in 1996 in <em>Reckitt &#038; Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran &#038; Anr<\/em>.<a href=\"#_ftn12\">[12]<\/a>\nIn this case plaintiff and defendant were engaged in the same business of\nmanufacturing clothing detergent brand. An advertisement was aired on TV in\nwhich defendant compared \u2018Ujala\u2019 with a product similar to \u2018Robin Blue\u2019 with\nsimilar shape and size. Advertisement stated \u2018Ujala\u2019 as cheaper and effective\nas compared to \u2018Robin Blue\u2019. Court held the advertisement as disparagement of\nplaintiff\u2019s product and laid down five principles to state the law on the\nsubject:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a01. \u00a0A\nmanufacturer can claim his goods to be best in the world, even though such\nclaim is false. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>2.\nHe can assert that his goods are better than his competitor\u2019s despite such statement\nbeing untrue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a03. To show his goods better he can even\ncompare his goods with his competitors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>4.\nWhile making comparison, he cannot criticize the goods of his competitor. To\nsay otherwise defaming competitor\u2019s goods are not permissible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a05. In case of defamation if an action for\nrecovery of damages lies, then the court is also competent to grant an order of\ninjunction to restraint repetition of such defamation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here\nthe court drew borderline as to what extent advertiser can boast his product\nand if he goes beyond that it comes in the domain of denigration which amounts\nto disparagement of competitor\u2019s product. The remarkable part of the holding\nwas liberal attitude of the court to enhance the competition among traders. It\ngave very wide interpretation of puffery without taking into consideration the\ninterest of consumers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The\nposition on Puffery was reconsidered in the case of <em>Glaxo Smith Klien Consumer Health Care Limited v. Heinz India Private\nLimited and Ors<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn13\">[13]<\/a>.\nHerein, plaintiff and defendant were manufacturers of nutritional drink\n\u2018Horlicks\u2019 and \u2018Complan\u2019 respectively. An advertisement was broadcasted in\nwhich defendant claimed his product has \u2018extra growing power\u2019 which enables\nkids to grow faster as compared to other drinks. Plaintiff argued that\ndefendant was misleading consumers as the claim was made in untruthful manner\nwithout any proof to support the same as result of which plaintiff is facing a\nhuge economic loss. Here also court didn\u2019t adopt any different approach than\nthe previous case. Adhering to the <em>Ramchandran\ncase<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn14\">[14]<\/a>,\ncourt held that advertiser can puff his claims in any manner he wants until it\nslanders his competitor\u2019s product. Again, in <em>Godrej Sara Lee case<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn15\">[15]<\/a> court\nobserved that defendant can highlight positive features of his product\nirrespective of the veracity of such claims. As long as he is not making any\nnegative claims against the product of his competitor, no possible objections\ncan be raised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>From\n<em>M.P. Ramchandran<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn16\">[16]<\/a>\nto <em>Godrej Sara Lee case<\/em> <a href=\"#_ftn17\">[17]<\/a> the\nposition remained the same as court continued to make wide interpretation of\nterm Puffery and failed to take into consideration the interest of consumers. A\nsignificant departure was made in 2008 by Madras High Court in the case of <em>Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited v Anchor\nHealth and Beauty Care Private Limited<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn18\">[18]<\/a> because\nfirst time court took into consideration the interest of consumers. Herein,\nplaintiff and defendant were dealing in the same line of business and were\nmanufacturers of toothpaste under trademark \u2018colgate\u2019 and \u2018Anchor\u2019\nrespectively. An advertisement was aired in which defendant claimed his product\n\u2018Anchor\u2019 is the \u2018only\u2019 one to contain all three ingredient i.e. Calcium,\nFluoride and Triclosan. Moreover he also stated that his toothpaste is \u2018first\u2019\nto provide all round protection. Plaintiff objected to the assertion of the\ndefendant as he made false statements because plaintiff\u2019s product also contains\nall these ingredients and gives overall protection. He argued that use of the\nwords \u201cONLY\u201d and \u201cFIRST\u201d goes beyond the tolerable limits of puffery resulting\ninto disparagement of his product. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Court\nheld that use of the words \u2018first\u2019 and \u2018only\u2019 are enough to mislead a prudent\nconsumer to think that Anchor is the only product containing all these\nqualities. Along with this it observed that defendant misrepresented the\nconsumers because he didn\u2019t come up with any scientific basis to prove his\nclaim. Though court didn\u2019t call it a case of disparagement because defendant\ndidn\u2019t slander his competitor\u2019s product actively but it surely made it a case\nfalling under unfair trade practices. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The case marks an important shift in the reasoning of the court because it had never taken into account the consumer\u2019s interest previously rather focused on the protection of competitor\u2019s interest. By this judgment court not only recognized consumer a significant stakeholder in the market but also protected him from getting misled by advertising companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"SHIFT_IN_PARADIGM_SUSTANTIAL_PROOF_REQUIRED_FOR_PUFFERY\"><\/span><strong>SHIFT IN PARADIGM: SUSTANTIAL PROOF REQUIRED FOR PUFFERY <\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cA\nmanufacturer can claim his goods to be best in the world, even though such\nclaim is false\u201d- it was one of the principles laid down by the court in <em>Ramchandran case<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn19\">[19]<\/a>.\nA series of cases adhered to this principle interpreting term puffery in a wider\nsense. However with the passage of time judicial perspective began to change\nand consumer was recognized as a significant stakeholder in the market. Later\ncourts began to ensure that consumer didn\u2019t get flustered by misleading claims\nbut still position remained same regarding wider interpretation of puffery. The\nconsistent view was taken by the courts till 2010, except <em>Colgate Case<a href=\"#_ftn20\"><strong>[20]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>,\nwas that advertiser while comparing his product with his competitor, can state\nthat his product is better than his competitor even when such claim is false\nprovided it doesn\u2019t disparage the competitor\u2019s product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a0A significant departure from this pattern was\nmade by Delhi High Court in the case of <em>Dabur\nIndia Limited v M\/S Colortek Megalaya Private Limited<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn21\">[21]<\/a>.\nHere plaintiff and defendant were manufacturers of mosquito repellant cream,\nOdomos naturals and Good Knight naturals respectively. Defendant claimed in an\nadvertisement that his mosquito repellant cream consists of Tulsi, Lavender and\nMilk Protein that protect skin from rashes, allergy and stickiness unlike other\ncreams. Plaintiff argued that the advertisement disparages his product as the\nclaim seems to convey the message that his cream causes allergies and rashes.\nHowever court held that the advertiser didn\u2019t cause any disparagement to\nplaintiff\u2019s product. It merely highlighted its positive aspect without\nsuggesting anything negative to his rival product. It further observed that\npuffed up claims are allowed considering the fact that they don\u2019t go beyond the\npermissible assertion having reasonable factual basis. No one can say that his\ngoods are best in the world without any substantial proof to support the same. The\ncase marks an important shift in the reasoning of the court because merely\nclaiming a product better than others is not enough, the assertion so made\nshould be backed by substantial proof. Now Consumer\u2019s interest was playing a\ndominant role in influencing the court\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Here\ncourt also referred to the case of <em>Dabur\nIndia Ltd. v Wipro Limited, Banglore<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn22\">[22]<\/a> \u00a0where in High Court observed that \u201cit is one\nthing to say that the defendant\u2019s product is better than that of the plaintiff\nand it is another thing to say that the plaintiff\u2019s product is inferior to that\nof the defendant.\u201d Therefore advertiser should be careful enough not to\ndenigrate its competitor\u2019s product. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This\ncase was recently followed in <em>Hindustan\nUnilever Limited, Mumbai v Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation\nLimited, Mumbai and others.<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn23\">[23]<\/a> \u00a0Here plaintiff was the manufacturer of frozen\ndesserts and ice creams under the mark \u201cKWALITY WALL\u2019S\u201d on the other hand\ndefendant was a co-operative society of milk producers in Gujarat and was also\nengaged in production of ice cream under mark \u201cAMUL\u201d. Two advertisements were\nbroadcasted where defendant claimed \u201cuse real milk Amul ice cream and not\nfrozen desserts which has vanaspati oil\u201d. It also used the tag line \u201cAmul is\nreal milk, Real ice cream\u201d. Plaintiff contended that defendant had made a false\nclaim as all frozen desserts don\u2019t contain vanaspati oil and due to such claims\nplaintiff is facing a huge economic loss. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Court\nheld that defendant has abused the rights guaranteed under Art 19(1)(a) by\nmaligning, belittling and denigrating the product of its competitor. This is\nnot even the case of comparative advertising because defendant has compared two\nentirely different features i.e. milk is compared with vanaspati oil and it\nshows the intention of defendant to denigrate the product of plaintiff who is market\nleader of that product. Here court also referred the <em>M\/S Colortek Megalaya<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn24\">[24]<\/a> case\nholding defendant guilty of disparaging its competitor\u2019s product by making\nuntrue statements as all frozen desserts are not necessarily consist of\nvanaspati oil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If we analyze the precedents set by judiciary, the legal position regarding comparative advertising seems to be well settled. Now courts have limited the ambit of puffery, a clear demarcation has been made between puffery and denigration and consumers have also been recognized as significant stakeholders in the market. From <em>Ramchandran<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn25\">[25]<\/a> to <em>Hindustan Unilever Limited case<\/em><a href=\"#_ftn26\">[26]<\/a>, judiciary has played imperative role in molding legal framework of comparative advertising in a positive manner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h4 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"CONCLUSION\"><\/span><strong>CONCLUSION <\/strong><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\n<p>In\nthis growing age of globalization and liberalization where there are plethora\nof products to choose from, advertising if done effectively can be the most\neffective way to help consumers to decide which product or service is best\nsuited for them. Comparative advertising is not only beneficial to the\nmanufacturers of the product but also beneficial for the consumers as in this\nprocess it educates the consumers and helps them in taking an informed decision\nas to which product is better amongst all the products in the market. The\nrelevant question arises here is whether the so called \u201cinformed\u201d decision of\nthe consumer can be considered informed when traders are allowed to puffup their claims without exposing the\ndemerits of other products? If yes, then it wouldn\u2019t be wrong to say that\nconsumers are misled by market players by making superlative claims<strong>.<\/strong> If not, then the purpose of\ncomparative advertising to educate consumers gets defeated. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If\nwe analyze the legal position of comparative advertising in U.K., it seems very\nmuch similar to India but there is a crucial difference between the\nprotectionist measures of the two countries. U.K. allows its advertisers to\nshow their competitor\u2019s product as inferior provided such assertion is backed\nby reasonable and valid claims. It helps consumers to make an objective\ncomparison between the products and take an informed decision. However, in\nIndia manufacturers are allowed to merely puff up their claims rather than\nshowing negative aspects of other products. Let\u2019s say if two companies are\nclaiming their products best in the world and only positive aspects of the\nproducts are shown in the advertisement. Now it\u2019s beyond ones understanding how\nit is going to help consumers to take an informed decision. Though such\nprovision is favorable to the manufacturer but is equally detrimental to\nconsumer\u2019s interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Thus,\nit becomes imperative to find a balance between interest of manufacturers and consumers\nso that latter doesn\u2019t become prey to their \u201cill-informed\u201d advertising. It is\nrecommended that ambit of comparative advertising should be extended a bit\nfurther and manufacturers should be allowed to highlight negative aspect of\ntheir competitor\u2019s products.<br><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a> Tom Bradshaw, <em>Comparative ads: what&#8217;s their status now ?<\/em>,\n74 TELEVISION\/RADIO AGE (1974).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a> WR Cornish &#038; D\nLlewelyn, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: PATENTS, COPYRIGHT, TRADE MARKS AND ALLIED\nRIGHTS 741 (6 ed. Sweet &#038; Maxwell Limitation 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref3\">[3]<\/a> K. Srinivasan, <em>competition for the MRTP act, <\/em>THE HINDU (Nov. 30, 2018, 02:30 PM), https:\/\/www.thehindubusinessline.com\/2000\/07\/20\/stories\/122001mr.htm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref4\">[4]<\/a> The Monopolies and Restrictive\nTrade Practices Act 1969 Sec 36 A (vi).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref5\">[5]<\/a> As seen in Colgate\nPalmolive (Indian) Ltd. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd., 2009\n(40) PTC 653.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref6\">[6]<\/a> Trademark, OFFICE OF\nTHE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS (Nov. 30, 2018, 04:00 PM), http:\/\/www.ipindia.nic.in\/about-us-tm.htm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref7\">[7]<\/a> See Hawkins Cooker Ltd v Murgan\nEnterprises, 2012 Indlaw DEL 4344. \u201cHonest practice is satisfied when one\ncannot decipher a commercial relation between registered proprietor of\ntrademark and other person business.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref8\">[8]<\/a> See C-2\/00 Michel Holterhoff\nv Ulrich Freieslelen, September 20, 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref9\">[9]<\/a> The Code for\nSelf-Regulation of Advertising content in India (Dec. 2, 2018, 08:00 PM), <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ascionline.org\/images\/pdf\/code_book.pdf\">https:\/\/www.ascionline.org\/images\/pdf\/code_book.pdf<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref10\">[10]<\/a> Hamdard Dawakhana v.\nUnion of India<em>,<\/em> AIR1965 SC 1167.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref11\">[11]<\/a> Tata Press Ltd. v.\nMahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd, AIR(199 5) 5 SCC 139.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref12\">[12]<\/a> Reckitt &#038; Colman of\nIndia Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran&#038;Anr, 1999 PTC (19) 741.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref13\">[13]<\/a> Glaxon\nSmith Klien Consumer Health Care Limited v. Heinz India Private Limited and\nOrs., 2007 (2) CHN 44.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref14\">[14]<\/a> Supra note 12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref15\">[15]<\/a> Godrej\nSara Lee Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (I) Ltd, 2006 (32) PTC 307.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref16\">[16]<\/a> Reckitt &#038;Colman of\nIndia Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran&#038;Anr, 1999 PTC (19) 741.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref17\">[17]<\/a> Supra note 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref18\">[18]<\/a> Colgate Palmolive\n(India) Limited v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Private Ltd., 2009 (40) PTC\n653.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref19\">[19]<\/a> Supra\nnote 16.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref20\">[20]<\/a> Supra\nnote 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref21\">[21]<\/a> Dabur\nIndia Ltd. v. M\/S Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd, 2010 (42) PTC 88.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref22\">[22]<\/a> Dabur India Ltd. v.\nWipro Limited, Banglore,2006 Indlaw DEL 373.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref23\">[23]<\/a> Hindustan Unilever\nLimited, Mumbai v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited,\nMumbai and \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0others, 2017 Indlaw MUM\n842.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref24\">[24]<\/a> Supra note 21.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref25\">[25]<\/a> Reckitt\n&#038;Colman of India Ltd. v. M.P. Ramchandran&#038;Anr, 1999 PTC (19) 741.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref26\">[26]<\/a> Supra note 23.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Deepti Verma &#038; Harsha | Dr. Ram ManoharLohiya National Law University, Lucknow | 9th November 2019 INTRODUCTION Advertisement plays a pivotal role in influencing consumers and stimulating the sale of the product. Globalization and Liberalization have increased the competition so much that every company wants to advertise its product to survive and remain in the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":325,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[34],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v21.8.1 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Deepti Verma &#038; Harsha | Dr. Ram ManoharLohiya National Law University, Lucknow | 9th November 2019 INTRODUCTION Advertisement plays a pivotal role in influencing consumers and stimulating the sale of the product. Globalization and Liberalization have increased the competition so much that every company wants to advertise its product to survive and remain in the [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LexForti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/crime-prevention-strategies1.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"225\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LexForti Legal News Network\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LexForti Legal News Network\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88\"},\"headline\":\"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\"},\"wordCount\":3737,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Contemporary Legal Issue\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\",\"name\":\"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"LexForti\",\"description\":\"Legal\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1\",\"width\":404,\"height\":404,\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News & Journal\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88\",\"name\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"LexForti Legal News Network\"},\"description\":\"LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/\",\"http:\/\/linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCRT9bwtsiRtF-RYr4G2dv3w\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lexforti-legal-news-network\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti","og_description":"Deepti Verma &#038; Harsha | Dr. Ram ManoharLohiya National Law University, Lucknow | 9th November 2019 INTRODUCTION Advertisement plays a pivotal role in influencing consumers and stimulating the sale of the product. Globalization and Liberalization have increased the competition so much that every company wants to advertise its product to survive and remain in the [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/","og_site_name":"LexForti","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti","article_published_time":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":400,"height":225,"url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/crime-prevention-strategies1.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"LexForti Legal News Network","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LexForti Legal News Network","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/"},"author":{"name":"LexForti Legal News Network","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88"},"headline":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest","datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/"},"wordCount":3737,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Contemporary Legal Issue"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/","name":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest - LexForti","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website"},"datePublished":"2020-04-23T10:29:48+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-17T11:59:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/comparative-advertising-balancing-manufacturer-vis-a-vis-consumer-interest\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Comparative Advertising: Balancing manufacturer vis-a-vis consumer interest"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","name":"LexForti","description":"Legal","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#organization","name":"LexForti Legal News & Journal","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","contentUrl":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/08\/159134300345793876.png?fit=404%2C404&ssl=1","width":404,"height":404,"caption":"LexForti Legal News & Journal"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/dc82860cbb04dab62a7b0a28b0cabc88","name":"LexForti Legal News Network","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/159134300345793876-96x96.png","caption":"LexForti Legal News Network"},"description":"LexForti Legal News and Journal offer access to a wide array of legal knowledge through the Daily Legal News segment of our Website. It provides the readers with the latest case laws in layman terms. Our Legal Journal contains a vast assortment of resources that helps in understanding contemporary legal issues.","sameAs":["https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Lexforti","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/lexforti\/","http:\/\/linkedin.com\/company\/lex-forti","https:\/\/twitter.com\/https:\/\/twitter.com\/lex_forti","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCRT9bwtsiRtF-RYr4G2dv3w"],"url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lexforti-legal-news-network\/"}]}},"views":98,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/167"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8073,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324\/revisions\/8073"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/325"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}