Calcutta HC Dismisses Emami’s Appeal Against Dabur’s ‘Cool King’ Advertisement [Read Order]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed Emami Limited’s appeal challenging Dabur India Limited’s advertisement for its prickly heat powder “Cool King,” ruling that the commercial does not disparage Emami’s competing products.

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Justice Uday Kumar delivered the judgment on July 2, 2025, finding no merit in Emami’s claims of disparagement through the use of the word “Sadharan” (ordinary) in Dabur’s advertisement.

The court addressed the appeal arising from A.P.O.T. No. 53 of 2025, where Emami challenged a modified injunction order dated January 17, 2025. The original suit alleged that Dabur’s advertisement, featuring a popular Bollywood actor, disparaged Emami’s market-leading products “Dermi Cool” and “Navratna.”

In the contested ad, the actor promotes Dabur’s “Cool King” while referring to a competitor’s bottle as “Sadharan” (ordinary). Emami argued that this amounted to disparagement of its products, particularly given its dominant market position.

Addressing Emami’s core contention, the court observed, “Upon carefully considering the submissions of the parties and on a close scrutiny of the two bottles—the one used in the offending advertisement and the bottle containing the products of the appellant—we find a marked difference between the two, which is visible to the naked eye.”

It highlighted the distinct features of Emami’s bottle, stating, “Whereas the appellant’s bottle is of a tapering shape, featuring a green slanted cap with a distinct and unique notch, the bottle shown in the assailed advertisement is a uniform cylinder without any taper and has a round, level cap of black colour.”

On Emami’s “recall value” argument, the court remarked, “From the perspective of an average consumer with ordinary recall capacity, a double recall would be required to accept the appellant’s contention—an inference we do not find justified.”

Regarding the use of the word “Sadharan,” the court clarified, “The term does not speak ill of the product or state that it is inferior. It merely projects the respondent’s product as extraordinary in comparison.”

Balancing commercial speech rights, the court noted, “While balancing the right of free commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to do business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, a fair balance must be struck between the respondent’s right to advertise its product and the appellant’s right to protect its brand.”

It distinguished this case from prior precedents, pointing out the absence of direct product naming or strong visual similarities between the bottles depicted in the advertisement and Emami’s actual packaging.

Concluding, the court stated that Emami was “being hypersensitive” and emphasized that “the freedom of commercial speech of the respondent and its fundamental right to do business cannot be throttled on a vague perception of disparagement, which is completely illusory in the present case.”

Case Title: Emami Limited vs. Dabur India Limited

Appearances:
For Emami Limited – Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Ms. Mini Agarwal, and Ms. Ratnadipa Sarkar.
For Dabur India Limited – Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, Senior Advocate, along with Mr. Sourajit Dasgupta, Mr. R. Jawaharlal, Ms. Megha Kumar, and Mr. Sudhakar Prasad.

[Read Order]