Calcutta High Court Clears Dabur’s Ranbir Kapoor Ad, Rejects Emami’s Disparagement Claim

On July 2, 2025, the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court clears Dabur’s Ranbir Kapoor ad, rejects Emami’s disparagement claim. Emami had alleged that a Dabur advertisement for its Cool King talcum powder—featuring Ranbir Kapoor—disparaged its own products, Dermi Cool and Navratna. The Bench, comprising Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Uday Kumar, upheld a prior ruling that found no unlawful disparagement in the ad.

The controversy began in mid-2024 when Dabur aired a commercial where a character rejected a talcum powder bottle labeled “Sadharan” (ordinary) in favor of Dabur’s Cool King. Emami claimed the bottle resembled its Dermi Cool packaging and that calling it “ordinary” was an indirect attack on its brand. Following this, Emami obtained a temporary injunction in July 2024, halting the ad’s broadcast.

In response, Dabur altered the ad. The updated version replaced the green-capped bottle with a plain white bottle featuring a black cap and no labeling—avoiding any direct reference to Emami's design. Satisfied that the modified ad no longer imitated Emami’s product, a single judge lifted the earlier restrictions in January 2025.

Still dissatisfied, Emami appealed, arguing that even the new ad conveyed a negative impression by using the term “Sadharan,” which, they claimed, continued to allude to their brand. Dabur’s legal team countered that there was no visual or verbal reference to Emami in the revised commercial. They noted that Emami did not hold design rights over the entire Dermi Cool bottle, only for one cap style, and highlighted that their revised ad used a generic, computer-generated bottle that bore no resemblance to Emami's products.

Moreover, Dabur pointed out that Emami itself had previously compared its talcum powders with "normal" or "fragrant" variants in its own ads, making it inconsistent for Emami to object to similar tactics now.

The Court found no merit in Emami’s claims. It ruled that the term “Sadharan” was used generically, not to target a specific competitor. It also held that consumers were unlikely to connect the earlier and revised ads unless they were excessively attentive viewers. The Bench concluded that Dabur’s right to advertise and conduct business could not be curbed on subjective claims of offense without concrete evidence.

Case details: [Emami Limited vs Dabur India Limited]