Reckitt Benckiser claims that the Green Flush toilet cleaner ad implied rejection of Harpic as the ad was similar to Harpic’s ad in the context of representation, setting and sequence. Photo: Bloomberg
Reckitt Benckiser claims that the Green Flush toilet cleaner ad implied rejection of Harpic as the ad was similar to Harpic’s ad in the context of representation, setting and sequence. Photo: Bloomberg

Patanjali’s Green Flush ad misleading and disparaging, Reckitt Benckiser tells Delhi HC

Delhi HC was hearing Reckitt Benckiser's plea against Patanjali, seeking an injunction against the allegedly disparaging 'Green Flush' toilet cleaner ad

New Delhi: Consumer goods company Reckitt Benckiser on Thursday told the Delhi high court that Patanjali’s ‘Green Flush’ toilet cleaner advertisement was misleading and disparaged its product, Harpic.

The Delhi high court was hearing Reckitt Benckiser’s plea against Patanjali, seeking an injunction against the allegedly disparaging television advertisement.

Chander Lall appearing for Reckitt Benckiser argued that the Green Flush advertisement showed a representation that Reckitt Benckiser’s toilet cleaner Harpic had been showing for over a decade “in bad light".

The Green Flush ad shows a man, who enters a household with a toilet cleaner in his hand, being greeted by a housewife who rejects his toilet cleaner.

It was Reckitt Benckiser’s claim that this advertisement implied rejection of Harpic, as the advertisement was similar to Harpic’s advertisement in the context of representation, setting and sequence.

“It is a representation that I have created..It is designed to target my audience. Show some other form of representation. Your advertisement harms me.. It seems to be pointing towards me," Lall argued.

Lall further argued that the Green Flush ad was misleading as it made a “categorically false statement" by giving an impression that its product was organic in nature as it contained “neem" and “Neembu", and not harmful hydrochloric acid.

Justice Manmohan asked Reckitt Benckiser to address the court on two grounds in subsequent hearings—whether the “Green Flush" advertisement amounted to “generic disparagement" and whether it amounted to “comparative advertisement".

On 11 January, the high court had refused to grant an ex-parte injunction in Reckitt Benckiser’s favour when it had moved it against the advertisement.

The matter will be heard next on 18 May.

Close