In a fresh round of battle between two major health drink makers, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Limited in its lawsuit against Abbott India Limited over an ad of Abbott's nutritional drink, Ensure. The lawsuit was filed after HUL, which sells the popular health drink Horlicks, said the ad of Abbott was derogatory to its product.This dispute arose when Abbott, as part of its promotional campaign relating to Ensure, started airing an ad that made unfavorable comparisons with Horlicks. HUL contended that the advertisement was misleading and was aimed at discrediting Horlicks-a brand which has garnered substantial market share in India for decades. In this respect, HUL argued that Abbott's ad did not simply misrepresent the nutritional value of Horlicks but moreover used misleading information to create a derisory perception of the product. While comparative advertising is allowed under Indian law, there are certain boundaries that are drawn around it, especially when the comparisons amount to disparagement or defamation of a competitor's product. HUL, in its suit, maintained that Abbott's ad crossed this line, leading to damage to its brand reputation. Decision of the Court A division bench of the Bombay High Court headed by Justice Manish Pitale granted interim relief to HUL, observing that prima facie, the ad was misleading and defamatory against Horlicks. The Court directed Abbott to immediately withdraw, remove or take down the ad from all digital media, including television and social media, pending disposal of the suit. Justice Pitale said while comparative advertising by companies was allowed, it should be done in a fair manner without causing any dent to the reputation of the competing products. The court held there was sufficient ground to believe that Abbott's ad had a possibility to mislead consumers about the nutritional value of Horlicks, thus justifying the interim relief granted to HUL. Implications of the Case This case illustrates well the thin line between permissible comparative advertising and illegal disparagement. The decision of the court upholds the legal policy so as to protect both consumers and competitors from false or misleading advertisements. Advertisers must be able to make comparisons which are grounded on truthful substantiated claims without resorting to the denigration of competing products. This interim order secures brand imagery for HUL and avoids the potential erosion of consumer confidence in Horlicks during the hearing of the suit. In the instance of Abbott, it has just reminded them of legal implications for overstepping the marks in advertising. The case is still unfolding as the court awaits the final disposal of the suit, with both companies staring at the need to balance competitive marketing with ethical advertising.