The Delhi High Court postponed the hearing in the legal battle between Hindustan Unilever Ltd (Hul) and Honasa Consumer Ltd over advertising for tanning.
The court also issued an order for both brands of the Runbow, which limited them any public or media statement concerning the case.
The court also forbade them to engage in indirect publicity through social media, including make -up or sharing posts.
The thing will now be heard 25. April.
During Monday’s hearing, HUL lawyers reported the court that it had taken several remedial measures in accordance with the earlier court order of 17 April. It was a overthrow of the contested online video ad from all digital platforms.
Hul also said that he made visual advertising by changing the color of a general color, unmarked sunscreen in the video. Yellow tube – properly considered to be reminiscent of derma Co. – has been replaced by a light yellow variant, a change that was adopted during the trial.
In addition to HUL video ad, he said he edited or removed all the print and outdoor ads in question. The color of the tube has been updated across these formats and the phrase “Online bestseller” has been replaced by “some sellers”.
Hul further claimed that he addressed all 196 influencers involved in the campaign, despite the intervening national holiday on 18 April and the weekend that followed. Within 24 hours, 171 influential people decreased their appropriate videos and the remaining 25 committed in the next 24 hours.
However, the law team of Honasa has questioned the demands on compliance with HUL. They argued that Hul’s affidavit contained false or misleading statements and presented images from HUL’s own instagram descriptor to show that some influential videos have remained alive from April 20.
They also noted that Hul failed to publish how many outdoor ads were originally deployed, so it was unclear whether complete adherence was achieved.
Honasa stressed that she had to identify and observe the remaining unfinished lawyers-what they should not be their burden.
The hearing was warmed more when Hul described Linkedin’s shared “Pankhuri Agarwal”, which described the development of the court of 17 April as “Great victory for Ghazal Alagh and Honas”. Hul argued that this was a public commentary on the proceedings of the submission.
Honasa faced that the company had made any official media statement and that its founder, Ghazal Alagh, only “liked” the post LinkedIn. Hul then pointed out that Pankhuri Agarwal was an ambassador to Honasa.
The High Court in Delhi, which expresses dissatisfaction with both parties, said that “it was not supposed to happen in the spirit of settlement” and seriously noticed public sending messages and behavior of social media.
The court explained that none of the parties should be involved in a public position. He issued a strict command of the gag prohibiting Hul and Honas to make any statement on the media concerning the case. “No favorite, no loving posts that say” great victory “for anyone,” the court added with a sharp remark.
The legal series began after Hul’s Lakmé released an advertisement that claimed that the popular “online bestseller” “online bestseller” provided only SPF 20 protection instead of the SPF 50. And she filed a lawsuit recorded that her advertising was captured, and aim to complete her forgiveness, and aimed at her forgiveness, and to complete her forgiveness.
Although no competitor was named, Honasa came from visual allusions, he claims that the campaign was depreciated by the Derma Co., which comes in orange and white packaging. Lakmé, on the other hand, uses gold-yellow color scheme.
Hul then filed against the Code against Honas at Bombay High Court and accused the competing brand of contemptuous claims in his own advertising.
(Tagstotranslate) hul
