ABSTRACT
Advertising, undoubtedly, has emerged as one of the main aspects of marketing today. In a market where the consumer is spoilt for choices, all firms try to play on consumer psychology in order to attract more and more customers. One way by which they manage to tap the market is through an aggressive advertisement campaign which figures most prominently on their marketing agenda. The people who argue in favour of advertising say that it is a necessary evil, helping firms publicize their products and helping buyers make informed choices. Considering the diverse market for products today, especially fast-moving consumer goods (FMCGs), this proposition indeed tends to hold credence. However, more often than not, these ad campaigns turn into major advertisement wars between monopolistic and oligopolistic firms. In this chapter, the authors have focused on comparative advertising as an efficient tool of marketing and have analysed the efficiency of the same in the light of the highly publicized case, Colgate Palmolive v. Hindustan Unilever. The chapter analyses comparative advertising on the basis of sound principles of law and economics and concludes by answering the question as to whether the judgement in the aforementioned case is proficient from a law and economics standpoint.
