Kent RO tells Delhi HC it will withdraw ads against Urban Company's water purifier

Kent RO Systems on Wednesday agreed before the Delhi High Court to withdraw advertisements attacking Urban Company’s claim that its water purifiers can operate for two years without servicing [Urban Company Vs Kent].

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded Kent’s statement after finding that Urban Company had made out a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction.

“After hearing (Urban Company's counsel) at length, I am convinced that at least an ad interim injunction is made out,” the judge said.

The suit concerns a series of online advertisements released by Kent questioning whether a water purifier could function for two years without servicing or replacement of its filters.

The advertisements allegedly described the claim as “completely false”, a “marketing gimmick” and “fake." One of them stated that relying on a water purifier for two years without maintenance or filter changes posed a “serious health and equipment risk."

Urban Company argued that the advertisements targeted the principal selling point of its Native M1 and M2 water purifiers. It claimed that it had spent around ₹80 crore advertising the two-year no-servicing feature and held a 42 per cent share of the market for purifiers offering such filter life.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Urban Company, said that the company’s purifiers used pre-filtration, smart-rinse, anti-scalant dosing and auto-flush technologies to prevent the filters from becoming clogged.

Sibal placed laboratory reports before the Court to show that the purifiers had been tested using 12,000 litres of water with total dissolved solids (TDS) levels ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 parts per million (PPM). The company said that 12,000 litres represented the estimated water consumption of an average household over two years.

Urban Company contended that Kent’s advertisements incorrectly stated that its two-year claim was based on tests conducted at only 750 PPM. It said that Kent continued to make this assertion even after receiving a legal notice informing it that the purifiers had been tested at higher TDS levels.

Kent, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan, argued that filter life depended on several conditions, including the hardness, turbidity and TDS levels of the water and the quantity consumed by a household.

She pointed to the fine print in Urban Company’s advertisements to argue that the two-year claim was itself tied to specific testing conditions. Since water conditions varied across India and even between different localities in Delhi, the two-year filter life could not be presented as a uniform claim, Kent submitted.

The Court acknowledged that water conditions and household consumption could affect filter life. However, it found Kent’s campaign to be excessively broad in branding the two-year technology itself as false or unsafe.

“Your disparagement is very, very wide. This can’t be true. These are all fake claims. These are false marketing gimmicks, etcetera. You don’t say this,” Justice Bhambhani remarked.

The judge also questioned whether the advertisements promoted Kent’s products at all or were primarily intended to discredit the two-year filter-life feature.

“You’re not saying why we should buy Kent,” the Court remarked.

Kent, thereafter, agreed to withdraw the offending advertisements within ten days. It also undertook not to run any advertisement or promotional content making the same or substantially similar claims that could disparage Urban Company’s two-year filter-life or no-servicing feature.

The Court recorded the undertaking instead of passing an interim injunction. The matter will be listed before the Joint Registrar on November 17 and before the Court thereafter.

Sibal (for Urban Company) was briefed by Advocate Aditya Gupta, partner at Ira Law.