The Bombay High Court has restrained further circulation of an advertisement by Berger Paints after observing that the campaign appeared to move beyond comparative advertising and into disparagement of rival Asian Paints.
In an ad-interim order passed on May 8, 2026 , Justice Arif S. Doctor said Asian Paints had established a prima facie case against the advertisement, which compared Berger’s Easy Clean paint with Asian Paints’ Apcolite Shyne All Protek product, according to a LiveLaw report.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 22, 2026 , while the interim relief will continue until June 23.
The Dispute: ‘Drishyam Series – Episode 1’
The dispute arose from a commercial intellectual property suit filed by Asian Paints against Namgial Enterprise and other parties associated with the advertisement, including Berger Paints India Ltd.
According to the court filings reported by LiveLawBiz, Asian Paints became aware on May 5, 2026 that a 102-second promotional video titled “Drishyam Series – Episode 1” was being circulated widely through WhatsApp groups involving paint dealers and trade members. The company later discovered that the video had also been uploaded to Instagram.
The title “Drishyam Series” and “Episode 1” suggested that this was not a one-off ad but potentially the first in a series of similar comparative campaigns.
What the Advertisement Showed
Asian Paints argued that although the advertisement did not explicitly name the company, the rival paint container was displayed prominently enough for viewers to identify the product.
The company contended that the commercial portrayed Berger’s paint as genuinely stain-resistant while depicting the Asian Paints product as ineffective through a lipstick stain-removal demonstration.
In the demonstration, Berger’s Easy Clean presumably removed the stain effectively, while Asian Paints’ Apcolite Shyne All Protek was shown failing to do so.
The ‘Fraud!’ Meme That Crossed the Line
The court took particular note of a segment in which a meme displaying the word “Fraud!” appeared during the demonstration.
Justice Doctor observed that, when viewed in its entirety, the advertisement disclosed a clear case of disparagement rather than permissible comparative advertising.
Under Indian law, comparative advertising is allowed — a company can say its product is better than a rival’s. However, disparagement — mocking, ridiculing, or falsely denigrating a competitor’s product — is not allowed.
The “Fraud!” meme appears to have crossed that line, moving from “ours is better” to “theirs is fraudulent.”
Asian Paints’ Arguments
Asian Paints argued that the “myth buster” presentation style and dramatic tone of the campaign were designed to undermine consumer confidence in its product and damage its reputation in the market.
The company further argued that the “myth buster” framing was misleading — presenting an opinion as if it were an objective fact.
Asian Paints also expressed concern that additional advertisements in a similar vein could follow, particularly because the video was presented as “Episode 1” of a series. The title suggested that more episodes were planned, which could cause further reputational damage.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Doctor observed that the circulation of the advertisement across WhatsApp and social media platforms had the potential to cause significant and irreversible harm to the goodwill and reputation associated with Asian Paints and its product portfolio.
In the age of instant messaging and social media, a disparaging video can spread to thousands of dealers, trade members, and consumers within hours — long before a company can file a lawsuit or seek court intervention.
The court accepted this concern and granted urgent interim relief without prior notice to the defendants.
Why the Court Agreed to No Prior Notice
Asian Paints sought urgent interim relief without prior notice to the defendants, arguing that advance notice could lead to wider dissemination of the video before any restraint order was issued.
The court agreed, holding that prior notice would defeat the purpose of urgent protection given the speed at which the advertisement was spreading online.
If Berger Paints had been warned in advance, they could have shared the video more widely before the court could stop it — exactly what Asian Paints wanted to prevent.
The Restraint Order: What Is Prohibited
The court consequently restrained Namgial Enterprise , associated parties, and unidentified defendants named in the suit from circulating, broadcasting, sharing or publishing the impugned video or similar material.
Social media platforms named in the case were also directed to remove the advertisement from their platforms.
This means the video can no longer be shared on WhatsApp, Instagram, or any other platform. Existing copies must be taken down.
Comparative Advertising vs. Disparagement: The Legal Difference
Under Indian trademark and advertising law, comparative advertising is generally permitted. A company can say:
- “Our paint is more stain-resistant than Brand X.”
- “Tests show our product performs better.”
However, disparagement is not permitted. Disparagement includes:
- Mocking or ridiculing a competitor’s product
- Using derogatory terms (like “fraud”) about a competitor
- Making false or misleading claims designed to damage reputation
The line is not always clear, but the “Fraud!” meme appears to have made the crossing obvious in this case.
What’s Next: Further Hearing on June 22
The matter is scheduled for further hearing on June 22, 2026.
By that date, Berger Paints will have an opportunity to respond more fully to Asian Paints’ arguments.
The ad-interim order (temporary restraint) will continue until June 23 , meaning the video cannot be circulated at least until the next hearing.
The final outcome will depend on whether Berger Paints can convince the court that its advertisement was permissible comparative advertising — or whether the court confirms that it crossed into disparagement.
Implications for Advertisers
This case serves as a warning for advertisers planning comparative campaigns.
You can say your product is better. You can show test results. You can name competitors.
But you cannot mock them. You cannot use derogatory terms. And you especially cannot call them fraudulent without evidence.
The speed of the court’s response — from Asian Paints becoming aware on May 5 to the court order on May 8 — shows that courts are willing to act quickly to prevent reputational harm in the age of social media.
The Role of Social Media in the Dispute
The fact that the video was shared on WhatsApp (dealer groups) and Instagram is significant.
Traditional television ads are regulated, time-bound, and easier to monitor. Social media ads can spread virally, be shared offline in WhatsApp groups, and resurface even after being taken down.
The court’s order explicitly directed social media platforms to remove the advertisement, recognizing that digital circulation requires digital remedies.
Berger Paints’ Position
The article does not include a response from Berger Paints (the order was passed ex-parte, meaning without Berger’s full response). However, Berger will have an opportunity to present its defense at the June 22 hearing.
Berger may argue that:
- The “Fraud!” meme was part of a humorous “myth buster” format, not a factual claim
- The demonstration was based on legitimate product testing
- Consumers understand that comparative ads use hyperbole
Whether the court accepts these arguments remains to be seen.
