Urban Company has taken Kent RO Systems to the Delhi High Court over an advertising campaign that allegedly made false and misleading claims about its Native water purifiers.
According to Urban Company’s regulatory filing and media reports, the company filed a defamation and product disparagement suit against Kent RO on August 11, alleging that a campaign comprising advertisements and influencer-led social media content targeted the two-year filter life and two-year no-servicing proposition of its Native range.
The dispute involves Urban Company’s Native M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro and M2 Pro water purifiers. Urban Company alleged that Kent’s campaign described the two-year filter and service-life proposition as a “marketing gimmick” and suggested that using Native purifiers was “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers.
The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court on August 12. Following the hearing, Kent RO agreed to remove the advertisements and social media content that were the subject of the dispute. It also undertook not to publish further promotional material making the same or similar claims about water purifiers offering a two-year filter life or two-year no-servicing feature in a manner that disparages Urban Company.
Kent has been directed to remove the disputed advertisements and social media content within 15 days from August 12. While the order was passed on August 12, it was uploaded on the Delhi High Court’s website on August 22, according to Urban Company’s filing.
The dispute brings renewed attention to the increasingly competitive nature of advertising in the consumer durables market, where brands are using comparative claims to differentiate products on performance, maintenance requirements, filter replacement cycles and overall ownership costs.
For Urban Company, the two-year filter life and no-servicing proposition is a central part of Native’s product positioning. Kent’s campaign directly challenged this proposition, escalating a product-level comparison into a legal dispute over the limits of comparative advertising and claims made about a rival brand’s products.
The advertising dispute comes amid a broader legal tussle between the two companies. Kent RO has separately filed a patent infringement suit against Urban Company, while Urban Company has filed a counterclaim against Kent’s patent as well as a separate suit alleging tortious interference.
These matters remain sub judice, according to Urban Company’s regulatory filing.
