Glaxo V/S Heinz (Law Competition Act.)

The case is about the negative advertisement due to growing competition between Horlicks (glaxo) and complan (Heinz). Horlicks and Complan both were the market leader in the children’s health drink industry. But with the growing competition it affected the completion policies.

Complan (Heinz) made an first advertisement in that the Complan Mummy tells the Horlicks Mom that she’s compromising her child’s health by buying a product made of cheap ingredients and that her (fat) child would not grow as fast as a child who was fed Horlicks. The Complan mother then picks out a Complan packet and explains how it has 23 vital ingredients which would ensure fast growth of a child. The ad then shows the Horlick’s mother visibly pushing away a package bearing the Horlicks trademark explaining how she had been misled and how she would no longer repeat the same mistake again.

In the second advertisement by Complan, a Horlicks mom asks the Complan Mummy how her son was so tall and strong. The Complan mother then expounds on the virtues of Horlicks after which she asks the Horlicks mother: “have you ever read the label of cheap Horlicks?”. This is followed by the Complan mom explaining to the Horlicks mom that Horlicks is made of cheap products and ingredients which means less nourishment & protein. The ad ends with a voiceover praising Complan.

Galaxo filed a case against Heinz.

Judgement :

As per the competition act, 2002 Section 4 Says that  No enterprise shall abuse its dominant position. Here complain made and advertisement which was showing its product strength by downgrading the Horlicks product which is illegal as per the completion act,2002 therefore judge find this case as commercial disparagement. The case was in favor of Horlicks since the ad-campaign against them was clearly disparaging and also ordered Complan to pay Horlicks costs of Rs. 2.2 Lakhs only.