|
|
|
The company contended that, in the ads, HUL
claimed that white colored lavatory cleaners had better
germ-killing properties than the blue colored ones - making an
obvious reference to Harpic, which was blue. R&B argued that
since Harpic had been a dominant brand in India for almost eight
decades, its blue color had become synonymous with the brand.
The company further said that HUL had intentionally and
deliberately tried to belittle blue-colored lavatory cleaners in
general, and Harpic in particular. |
The company also sought compensation to the tune of
Rs. 2 million (US$49,866) from HUL for causing irreparable damage to its
reputation.4 Vehemently denying the
allegations, HUL argued that the ads had made no direct attack on Harpic
and pointed out that R&B was selling Harpic in other colors as well.
After hearing both parties, the DHC reserved judgment. The fight for the
lavatory market in India had clearly got dirtier and, perhaps, murkier
days lay ahead.
Additional Readings & References
1. "HC Orders Appearance of Company Officials of Reckitt Benckiser," www.economictimes.indiatimes.com, Jan 31, 2008.
2. Tanvi Shukla, "HC Contempt Notice to Reckitt?" www.dna.com, January
31, 2008.
3. "India's Reckitt & Benckiser, HUL in Legal Battle over TV Ad," www.yahoo.com, February 22, 2008.
4. "Reckitt & Benckiser, HUL Locked in Legal Battle over 'Harpic' TV
Ad," www.economictimes.indiatimes.com, February 21, 2008.
5. "Reckitt, HUL in Legal Tussle over TV Ad," www.business-standard.com,
February 21, 2008.
6. "India's Reckitt & Benckiser, HUL in Legal Battle over TV Ad," www.yahoo.com, February 22, 2008.
Cases on related topics
1.
HLL - Power Brand Strategy
2.
Lifebuoy "Swasthya Chetna": Unilever's Social Marketing Campaign
|
4] "Reckitt & Benckiser, HUL Locked in Legal Battle
over 'Harpic' TV Ad," www.economictimes.indiatimes.com, February 21, 2008. |
