DOCSLIB.ORG

Should Comparative Advertisement Be Allowed?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Should Comparative Advertisement Be Allowed? Issue XXVII | September 2013 Should Comparative Advertising be allowed? Introduction The Delhi High Court (“the Court”) by its judgment dated August 21, 2013 dismissed the injunction petition filed by Colgate against Pepsodent. The Pepsodent-Colgate ad war had started on August 9, 2013 with the release of Pepsodent’s latest advertisement that used Colgate’s name in their ad claiming 130% better protection. This led Colgate to file a case in Delhi High Court on August 13, 2013. The court was not satisfied that Pepsodent’s latest advertisement denigrated Colgate or has showed that it is better than Colgate. The present bulletin will discuss the highlights of the case filed before the Court and also visit the regulations governing comparative advertising in India. I Facts of the case Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. (“Colgate”) filed a suit against Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (“HUL”) on August 13, 2013 for an interim injunction. HUL had launched its Pepsodent Germicheck’s advertisement on August 9, 2013 which compared the toothpaste’s germ attack power with Colgate Strong Teeth claiming that Pepsodent Germicheck has “130% superior” germ attack power over Colgate Strong Teeth after four hours of brushing. Colgate claimed the interim injunction against HUL on the following grounds: 1. The claim made by HUL that Pepsodent Germicheck had 130% attack power was a false statement and in violation of several provisions of the Code of Advertising Standards Councils of India, 1985 (“ASCI”) as well as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 as it amounted to “misbranding”. 2. The TV commercial commenced on August 9, 2013 and print advertisement appeared in the front page of the Delhi edition of “Hindustan Times” dated August 11, 2013 portrayed bad image of Colgate’s product and falsely conveyed that the use of Colgate could cause cavities. The advertisements were viewed in the Court several times during the course of arguments and the observation made was that the TV commercial portrays that Triclosan an ingredient in Pepsodent stays in the mouth four hours after brushing and qualifies a “preventive cavity test”. But Colgate contended that no such test exists in the world. Then again, the Colgate Boy was shown brushing his teeth in an improper manner, whose teeth had cavities and he seemed to be unhappy which implies that Colgate’s toothpaste could cause cavities. 3. Colgate contended that HUL’s past record showed that HUL has made a habit of introducing false and misleading advertisements and increase its market share dishonestly. It had a history of making false claims in respect of its products. Cases such as: Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.1 (hereafter Dettol vs. Lifebuoy case), Reckitt Benckiser 1 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 200 (2013) DLT 563 Disclaimer – This bulletin is for information purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. © PSA Issue XXVII | September 2013 (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.2 (hereafter Dettol Liquid case) and Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.3 were cited. 4. It was argued that the words “Pepsodent now better than Colgate Strong Teeth” in the print advertisement were meant to convey that Colgate Strong Teeth was no longer a good product. Also, the word “Attaaaack” used in the ad was an attack on Colgate and not on the cavity causing germs. 5. Colgate apprehended a loss of market share if the HUL was not restrained from circulating these ads. The submissions made by HUL in reply to the case filed were as below: 1. In this regard, the decision in Dabur India Limited vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. was cited to show that courts have allowed comparative advertising. 2. HUL asked the court not to adopt a hyper technical view and not to analyse an advertisement like a statute or a clause of an agreement. As their intent was not to denigrate the product or the brand of Colgate. 3. HUL submitted that the whole purpose of these advertisements was to compete with Colgate at the price segment at which it was selling Colgate Strong Teeth and the aim of HUL was to show that the superior product that Colgate could offer was always marketed as a premium product. II Judgment On the basis of the judgments given in the earlier cases such as Dabur India Ltd. vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. and Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.4 the Court dismissed the case by saying that HUL is not denigrating the product of Colgate. It said that it is unable to identify any unfairness in this practice that may attract the clauses of ASCI Code. Comparative advertising is permissible as long as the competitor’s product is not derogated and disgraced while comparing. In the case Dabur India Ltd vs. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd., it was held that certain factors have to be kept in mind while deciding a question of disparagement. These factors are (i) intent of the commercial; (ii) manner of the commercial; and (iii) storyline of the commercial and the message sought to be conveyed. Further, in the case Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr.5, it was held that (i) a seller is entitled to declare his goods to be best in the world, even though his statement is not true; (ii) He can say that his goods are better than his competitors’ goods, even though his statement is not true; (iii) he can compare the advantages of his goods over the goods of others; (iv) however, he cannot say that his competitors’ goods are bad. 2 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 2013 V AD (Del) 94 3 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Ltd. vs. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 151 (2008) DLT 650 4 Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr. 1999 (19) PTC 741 5 Reckitt and Colman of India Ltd. vs. M.P. Ramchandran and Anr. 1999 (19) PTC 741 Disclaimer – This bulletin is for information purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. © PSA Issue XXVII | September 2013 According to the court too much could not be read into the expressions of each individual character in the advertisements. Also, the court noticed that the teeth of the Colgate Boy had not been zoomed into and no gaps or cavities could be seen. The expressions and effects used in the advertisement only showed that Pepsodent was a better product but did not disparage Colgate’s product. Also, the court said that as there is a comparison of products and an attempt to show that one is better than the other, then obviously both boys cannot have happy faces. Also, the court held that the word “attack” in the print ad was related to Pepsodent’s germ fighting capability and was not an attack on Colgate. III Analysis The ASCI has adopted a Code in 1985 for Self-Regulation in advertising. It is a commitment to honest advertising and to fair competition in the market place. ASCI Code deals with the various provisions pertaining to advertisements. Colgate claimed that HUL has violated the provisions of chapter IV of ASCI Code. Chapter IV of the Code pertains to the fairness in competition. The broad aspects covered by it are as under: (i) Advertisements containing comparisons with other manufacturers or suppliers or with other products including those where a competitor is named are permissible in the interests of vigorous competition and public enlightenment, provided: (a) It is clear what aspects of the advertiser’s product are being compared with what aspects of the competitor’s product. (b) The subject matter of comparison is not chosen in such a way as to confer an artificial advantage upon the advertiser or so as to suggest that a better bargain is offered than is truly the case. (c) The comparisons are factual, accurate and capable of substantiation. (d) There is no likelihood of the consumer being misled as a result of the comparison, whether about the product advertised or that with which it is compared. (e) The advertisement does not unfairly denigrate attack or discredit other products, advertisers or advertisements directly or by implication. (ii) Advertisements shall not make unjustifiable use of the name or initials of any other firm, company or institution, nor take unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to the trade mark or symbol of another firm or its product or the goodwill acquired by its advertising campaign. (iii) Advertisements shall not be similar to any other advertiser’s earlier run advertisements in general layout, copy, slogans, visual presentations, music or sound effects, so as to suggest plagiarism. (iv) As regards matters covered by sections 2 and 3 above, complaints of plagiarism of advertisements released earlier abroad will lie outside the scope of this Code except in the under-mentioned circumstances: Disclaimer – This bulletin is for information purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. © PSA Issue XXVII | September 2013 (a) The complaint is lodged within 12 months of the first general circulation of the advertisements/campaign complained against. (b) The complainant provides substantiation regarding the claim of prior invention/usage abroad. Keeping in view the above points, it cannot be concluded that HUL disparaged the product of Colgate. However, in the case of Tata Press Ltd. vs. MTNL6, the Supreme Court opined that it is not good to declare own goods to be the best and better than his competitors’ but if it does so, the advertiser must have some reasonable factual basis for the assertion made. In the case, Marico Limited (Saffola) vs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A STUDY on BEHAVIOUR PATTERN of DIVIDEND PAY-OUT: SELECTED BLUE-CHIP COMPANIES in INDIA Author Co - Author Dr.K.R.Sivabagyam A.Ranjitha Assistant Professor K
    Compliance Engineering Journal ISSN NO: 0898-3577 A STUDY ON BEHAVIOUR PATTERN OF DIVIDEND PAY-OUT: SELECTED BLUE-CHIP COMPANIES IN INDIA Author Co - Author Dr.K.R.Sivabagyam A.Ranjitha Assistant Professor K. Madhu Varshini Department of Commerce N.Deekshithaa Sri Krishna Arts and Science College S. Kabilambika E-mail Id: [email protected] II M.Com Students MOB: 7871809789 E-mail Id: [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Mob: 9486939255; 9715184177; 9025868186 ABSTRACT Reliance Industries, Tata Consultancy services (TCS) and WIPRO in India and The term blue-chip was used to describe observe the behaviour pattern of the three high- priced stocks in 1923 when Oliver measures of dividend policy of the blue- Gingold, an employee at Dow Jones chip companies in India. observed certain stocks trading at $200 or more per share. Poker players bet in blue, KEYWORDS: Blue Chip Companies, white and red chips with blue chips having Dividend Policy, Investment Proposals. more value than both red and white chips. INTRODUCTION Today, blue chips stocks don’t necessarily refer to stocks with a high price tag, but In the exchange of India there are literally more accurately to stocks of high-quality thousands of companies but when it comes companies that have with stood the test of to financial stability only few companies time. A blue-chip company is a are financially stable and in other financial multinational firm that has been in aspects. Long term investors seek out for operation for a number of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Goods on Path to Recovery; Essentials Hold an Upper Edge Sector Update
    Consumer Goods On path to recovery; Essentials hold an upper edge Sector Update Most consumer goods companies started Q4FY2020 with good growth, as Q4FY2020 Results Review gradual recovery was seen in the demand environment (especially in rural markets). However, the outbreak of COVID-19 resulted in a complete lockdown Sector: Consumer Goods in India in the last 10-15 days of March, leading to complete stoppage of production and disruption in supply chain. This impacted sales volumes of most Sector View: Positive companies at the fag end of the quarter, resulting in weak Q4FY2020 numbers. Volumes of most companies (barring food companies) under our coverage declined by 3-22% in Q4FY2020 (revenue of Sharekhan universe declined by 7.8% y-o-y). Companies such as Britannia Industries and Tata Consumer Products Our coverage universe (TCPL) registered growth of 2.5% and 5-6% (at organic level), respectively, in Q4FY2020. On the other hand, companies such as Godrej Consumer Products CMP PT Companies Reco. (Rs) (Rs) (GCPL), Emami, Jyothy Labs, and Dabur India posted double-digit decline in revenue, as pre-season inventory loading by dealers/distributors was affected Asian Paints 1,709 Buy 1,987 by the lockdown. On the international front, companies having large presence Britannia in Africa, Middle East and South East Asian countries registered lower sales in 3,623 Buy 4,060 Industries the international business affected by lockdown and macro headwinds. Lower raw-material prices (especially crude-linked inputs) and lower packaging costs Colgate- 1,383 Positive 1,551 aided gross margins of some companies to expand by 100-300 bps.
    [Show full text]
  • Loan Against Securities – Approved Single Scrips
    Loan against securities – Approved Single Scrips SR no ISIN Scrip Name Margin 1 INE216A01030 BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED 50 2 INE854D01024 UNITED SPIRITS LIMITED 50 3 INE437A01024 APOLLO HOSPITALS ENTERPRISE LTD 50 4 INE208A01029 ASHOK LEYLAND LTD 50 5 INE021A01026 ASIAN PAINTS LTD 50 6 INE406A01037 AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD 50 7 INE917I01010 BAJAJ AUTO LTD 50 8 INE028A01039 BANK OF BARODA 50 9 INE084A01016 BANK OF INDIA 50 10 INE463A01038 BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD 50 11 INE029A01011 BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 50 12 INE323A01026 BOSCH LTD 50 13 INE010B01027 CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD 50 14 INE059A01026 CIPLA LTD 50 15 INE522F01014 COAL INDIA LTD 50 16 INE259A01022 COLGATE-PALMOLIVE (INDIA) LTD 50 17 INE361B01024 DIVIS LABORATORIES LTD 50 18 INE089A01023 DRREDDYS LABORATORIES LTD 50 19 INE129A01019 GAIL (INDIA) LTD 50 20 INE860A01027 HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD 50 21 INE158A01026 HERO MOTOCORP LTD 50 22 INE038A01020 HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD 50 23 INE094A01015 HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD 50 24 INE030A01027 HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD 50 25 INE079A01024 AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD 50 26 INE001A01036 HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPLTD 50 27 INE090A01021 ICICI BANK LTD 50 28 INE242A01010 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD 50 29 INE009A01021 INFOSYS LTD 50 30 INE154A01025 ITC LTD 50 31 INE237A01028 KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD 50 32 INE498L01015 LT FINANCE HOLDINGS LTD 50 33 INE018A01030 LARSEN TOUBRO LTD 50 34 INE326A01037 LUPIN LTD 50 35 INE101A01026 MAHINDRA MAHINDRA LTD 50 36 INE585B01010 MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD 50 37 INE775A01035 MOTHERSON SUMI SYSTEMS LTD 50 38 INE883A01011
    [Show full text]
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited
    Hindustan Unilever Limited Shift to Biomass Fired Burners CASE STUDY Figure 1: Nashik Biomass Boiler Figure 2: Orai Burner for incorporation of Vegetable Oil Residue Summary Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has more than 20 manufacturing sites, where fossil fuel is being used to generate steam and hot air for process heating. To minimize our dependence on conventional fossil fuels and reduce CO2 emissions, the company started focusing on renewable energy opportunities since 2009. Prior to this, only 5 of our sites had biogenic fuel firing. A long-term road map for conversion of major fuel consuming sites was drawn-up. Since then, the company has commissioned 10 biomass fired Boilers and Hot Air Generators in India. Presently, more than 60,000 T of biogenic fuel is utilized annually for our process heating. Objective of Intervention The objective of the case study is to demonstrate the impact of biomass-based fuel usage on CO2 reduction along deliverance of cost savings. Type of Intervention and Location The intervention is to increase the share of renewable energy in HUL’s overall energy consumption portfolio by maximizing utilization of biomass fired fuels and reducing dependence on fossil fuels. The Reinforcing India’s Commitment Page 1 sites of intervention are the following locations where biomass-fired burners have been installed post-2010. These include biomass fuel-based Hot Air Generators (HAG) and Boilers (BMB): Chiplun (HAG), Goa (BMB), Haldia (HAG), Haridwar (BMB), Hosur (BMB), Mysore (BMB), Nashik (BMB), Orai (BMB), and Rajpura (HAG and BMB). Description of Intervention Since 2009, we have invested more than INR 60 crores in installation of Biomass Fired Steam Boilers and Hot Air Generators.
    [Show full text]
  • Cipla Limited
    Cipla Limited Registered Office: Cipla House, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Phone: (9122) 2482 6000, Fax: (9122) 2482 6893, Email: [email protected], Website: www.cipla.com Corporate Identity Number: L24239MH1935PLC002380 Annexure to the Board’s Report Particulars of employee remuneration for the financial year ended 31st March, 2019 As required under section 197(12) of the Companies Act, 2013, read with rule 5(2) and (3) of the Companies (Appointment and Remuneration of Managerial Personnel) Rules, 2014. Employed throughout the year Name Designation Qualification Experience Age Date of Last employment Remuneration (in years) (in years) Employment (Rs.) Abhay Kumar Chief Talent Officer Master of Arts / 17 53 3/10/2016 Piramal Pharma 15,034,298.00 Srivastava Master of Personal Solutions Management Ademola Olukayode Head - Quality Doctorate / MPH / B. 17 48 20/6/2018 US FOOD AND DRUG 17,982,961.00 Daramola Compliance & Tech. ADMINISTRATION Sustainability (US FDA) Ajay Luharuka Head Finance - IPD, B.com,MMS,CFA 23 46 11/7/1996 NIIT Limited 11,922,994.00 API, Specialty & Global Respi Aliakbar Rangwala Senior Business Head M. Sc. / B. Sc. 19 42 19/1/2009 NA 10,677,779.00 - Chronic & Emerging - India Business Alpana Vartak Head - Talent MBA (HR) / B. Sc. 15 41 8/1/2018 Coco - Cola 10,312,782.00 Acquisition Company Anil Kartha Site Head - Bsc, Bpharm 28 56 27/5/1991 Vysali 12,525,338.00 Patalganga - Pharmaceuticals Formulations Anindya Kumar Shee Head - Organization B. Tech. / MBA 18 48 14/1/2016 Reliance Industries 11,084,298.00 Development Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindustan Unilever (HINLEV)
    HindustanTAT Unilever (HINLEV) CMP: | 1670 Target: | 1900 ( 14%) Target Period: 12 months HOLD May 6, 2019 Volume growth moderates on high base… Hindustan Unilever (HUL) reported a healthy set of numbers with revenue growth of 9.3% YoY on the back of 7% volume growth. Volume growth moderated on a high base, after delivering five consecutive quarters of double digit growth. Operating margins expanded 83 bps YoY to 23.3% well Particulars supported by a 63 bps decline in marketing expenses to sales, 35 bps Particular (| crore) Amount reduction in employee expenses to sales and 11 bps decline in other Market Capitalization 360,720.0 overheads to sales, partly offset by a 27 bps increase in material costs to Total Debt (FY19) 0.0 sales. Led by healthy sales growth and strong margins, net profit for the Cash and Investments (FY19) 6,381.0 Result Update Result quarter grew 13.8% YoY to | 1,538 crore. EV 354,339.0 52 week H/L (|) 1870 / 1443 Leveraging direct reach & building blocks in e-commerce Equity capital 216.0 Face value | 1 Consumer companies have been historically dependent on wholesale FII Holding (%) 11.8 channel as its main trade channel. HUL, which has total reach of 7 million DII Holding (%) 7.0 outlets, has built its direct reach over the period and it stands at around 50%; much higher than other FMCG players. This gives it an edge over its peers, Key Highlights especially when the wholesale channel is under pressure. Proactively, HUL is also increasing its presence in e-commerce (3% of turnover) which has Home care (35% of revenue) posted been growing at a fast pace post GST implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Hindustan Unilever Limited Winning in the India of Today & Tomorrow Safe Harbour Statement
    Hindustan Unilever Limited Winning in the India of Today & Tomorrow Safe Harbour Statement This Release / Communication, except for the historical information, may contain statements, including the words or phrases such as ‘expects, anticipates, intends, will, would, undertakes, aims, estimates, contemplates, seeks to, objective, goal, projects, should’ and similar expressions or variations of these expressions or negatives of these terms indicating future performance or results, financial or otherwise, which are forward looking statements. These forward looking statements are based on certain expectations, assumptions, anticipated developments and other factors which are not limited to, risk and uncertainties regarding fluctuations in earnings, market growth, intense competition and the pricing environment in the market, consumption level, ability to maintain and manage key customer relationship and supply chain sources and those factors which may affect our ability to implement business strategies successfully, namely changes in regulatory environments, political instability, change in international oil prices and input costs and new or changed priorities of the trade. The Company, therefore, cannot guarantee that the forward looking statements made herein shall be realized. The Company, based on changes as stated above, may alter, amend, modify or make necessary corrective changes in any manner to any such forward looking statement contained herein or make written or oral forward looking statements as may be required from time to time on the basis of subsequent developments and events. The Company does not undertake any obligation to update forward looking statements that may be made from time to time by or on behalf of the Company to reflect the events or circumstances after the date hereof.
    [Show full text]
  • List of Partners Company
    LIST OF BiSEP HOST INSTITUTIONS & THEIR PARTNER NAME OF THEINDUSTRIES No. PARTNER INSTITUTION 1 R.G. Kasat Industries Pvt.INDUSTRIES Ltd 2 Nirani Sugars Ltd 3 Sri Vaikunt Biotech 4 Chemogenesis Research & Development Centre Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot 5 Syngene International Ltd 6 Mylan Laboratories Ltd 7 Theramyt Novobiogenics 8 Biozeen - Bangalore Biotech Labs 1 Pragna Biosciences Pvt. Ltd 2 Biosyl Technologies Pvt. Ltd B.V. Bhoomaraddi College of Engineering & 3 Hosmani Nutraceuticals Pvt. Ltd Technology, Hubballi 4 Excel Foods Pvt. Ltd 5 Green Globe Biotechnologies 1 Mahyco 2 Crab Fish Advisory LLP 3 Ajeeth Seeds 4 Coffee Board 5 Monsanto Research Centre 6 Criyagen Agri & BT Ltd 7 Natural Remedies 8 Meta-Helix Life Sciences Dayananda College of Engineering, Bengaluru 9 Limagrain Ltd 10 Centre for Medicinal Plants, Arya Vaiyda Sala, Kottakal 11 Dupont Ltd 12 Plantek Tissue Culture Labs 13 Jubiliant Biosys Ltd 14 InterpretOmics India Pvt. Ltd 15 Strand Lifesciences 16 Molecular Connections 17 Polyclone Bio Services 1 Probiosys 2 Natural remedies Pvt Ltd, Bangalore Gulbarga University, Kalaburagi 3 Biocon Ltd, Bangalore 4 Karnataka Antibiotics &Pharmaceuticals Ltd 1 Mahyco Institute of Agri-Biotechnology, Dharwad 2 Crab Fish Advisory LLP 3 Ajeeth Seeds 1 Prosetta Bioconformatics Pvt. Ltd 2 Vipragen 3 Bhat Biotech 4 Richcore Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd., JSS College of Arts, Commerce and Science, 5 Kemwell Biopharma Pvt. Ltd., Mysuru 6 Hindustan Unilever Ltd 7 Thermo Fisher Scientific 8 Theraindx Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd 9 Aigle Biosolutions Pvt. Ltd 10 Novozymes South Asia Pvt. Ltd 1 Hindustan Unilever Ltd 2 Himalaya Drug Company 3 Sami Labs Ltd 4 Acquity Labs Pvt.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report and Accounts 2020 and Is an Exact Copy of the Printed Document Provided to Unilever’S Shareholders
    Disclaimer This is a PDF version of the Unilever Annual Report and Accounts 2020 and is an exact copy of the printed document provided to Unilever’s shareholders. Certain sections of the Unilever Annual Report and Accounts 2020 have been audited. These are on pages 112 to 167, and those parts noted as audited within the Directors’ Remuneration Report on pages 90 to 99. The maintenance and integrity of the Unilever website is the responsibility of the Directors; the work carried out by the auditors does not involve consideration of these matters. Accordingly, the auditors accept no responsibility for any changes that may have occurred to the financial statements since they were initially placed on the website. Legislation in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements may differ from legislation in other jurisdictions. Except where you are a shareholder, this material is provided for information purposes only and is not, in particular, intended to confer any legal rights on you. This Annual Report and Accounts does not constitute an invitation to invest in Unilever shares. Any decisions you make in reliance on this information are solely your responsibility. The information is given as of the dates specified, is not updated, and any forward-looking statements are made subject to the reservations specified in the cautionary statement on the inside back cover of this PDF. Unilever accepts no responsibility for any information on other websites that may be accessed from this site
    [Show full text]
  • R. Gopalakrishnan Executive Director, Tata Sons, India Saturday, September 8, 2007, 10:30 A.M
    California State Polytechnic University, Pomona ● College of Letters, Arts and Social Sciences The Real Purpose of Business A Dialogue with R. Gopalakrishnan Executive Director, Tata Sons, India Saturday, September 8, 2007, 10:30 a.m. - 12 noon Collins School of Hospitality Management, Room 1263 What is the role of business in society, and how can business leaders rise to meet the challenges of this role? Mr. R. Gopalakrishnan, a top executive from the Tata Group, one of India's largest and most respected business conglomerates, will address these vitally important questions, and share with us his vision of “the Real Purpose of Business.” Further, he will discuss how business actions and practices should, and can, be grounded in values such as care, compassion, nonviolence, and courage. R. Gopalakrishnan (Gopal) is the Executive Director of Tata Sons Ltd. He is also the chairman of Rallis India Limited and Advinus Therapeutics Private Ltd., vice chairman of Tata Chemicals, and a director of several Tata companies including Tata Motors, Tata Power and Tata Teleservices. Prior to joining Tata Sons in September 1998 as Executive Director, he served for over three decades in various capacities at India’s largest fast moving consumer goods company, Hindustan Lever Ltd. (now Hindustan Unilever Ltd.) The appointments he held from 1990 onwards were: Chairman of Unilever Arabia (based in Jeddah), followed by Managing Director of Brooke Bond Lipton India (based in Bangalore), and then Vice Chairman of Hindustan Lever Limited. Gopal is actively involved in the field of education through his memberships in the boards of a school and two management colleges.
    [Show full text]
  • Sharekhan Special August 31, 2021
    Sharekhan Special August 31, 2021 Index Q1FY2022 Results Review Automobiles • Capital Goods • Consumer Discretionary • Consumer Goods • Infrastructure/Cement/Logistics/Building Material • IT • Oil & Gas • Pharmaceuticals • Agri Inputs and Speciality Chemical • Miscellaneous • Visit us at www.sharekhan.com For Private Circulation only Q1FY2022 Results Review In-line quarter, healthy outlook Results Review Results Summary: After ending FY2021 on a strong note, Q1FY2022 earnings of broader indices showed a promising start (Nifty/ Sensex companies’ PAT rose 100%/66% y-o-y) in the new fiscal with strong growth momentum on low base. Management commentaries on earnings outlook remained positive, on improving economic activity post second COVID-19 wave and anticipation of strong demand revival. Demand recovery and ramp-up of vaccinations look encouraging. We expect economic activity to increase in the upcoming festive season. Nifty trades at 23x and 20x EPS based on FY2022E/FY2023E EPS, at a premium to mean average. Valuation gap between large and mid-caps has shrunk, we advise investors to focus on stocks with strong earnings growth potential with reasonable valuation. High-conviction investment ideas: o Large-caps: Infosys, ICICI Bank, M&M, L&T, UltraTech, SBI, HDFC Ltd, Godrej Consumer Products, Divis Labs and Titan. o Mid-caps: NAM India, BEL, Gland Pharma, Dalmia Bharat, Laurus Labs, Max Financial Services, LTI. o Small-caps: TCI Express, Kirloskar Oil, Suprajit Engineering, Repco Home Finance, PNC Infratech, Mahindra Lifespaces, Birlasoft. After ending FY2021 on a strong note, Q1FY2022 corporate earnings of broader indices showed a promising start with continued strong growth momentum on the low base of Q1FY2021, though it was along the expected lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Top 20 FMCG Companies in India 1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 2
    Top 20 FMCG Companies in India 1. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. 2. ITC (Indian Tobacco Company) 3. Nestlé India 4. GCMMF (AMUL) 5. Dabur India Ltd 6. Asian Paints (India) 7. Cadbury India 8. Britannia Industries Ltd. 9. Procter & Gamble Hygiene and Health Care 10. Marico Industries Ltd. 11. Colgate-Palmolive (India) Ltd. 12. Gillette India Ltd. 13. Godfrey Phillips 14. Henkel Spic 15. Johnson & Johnson 16. Modi Revlon 17. Nestle 18. Nirma Ltd 19. Amul India 20. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd TEXTILE INDUSTRY Textile business is one among the largest foreign exchange earners in India and this sector has been significantly benefitted from the termination of Multi-Fiber Arrangement in the year 2005. Out of the total exports in India, 17% is contributed by the textile industry in India and this industry account for 14% of its industrial production. More than 35 million people are employed in this sector. When it comes to India’s exports, carpets and readymade garments offer larger contributions. The names of top players in the Indian Textile Industry are given below: Top companies in Textile industry in India: • Bombay Dyeing • Fabindia • Grasim Industries • JCT Limited • Lakshmi Mills • Mysore Silk Factory • Arvind Mills • Raymonds • Reliance Textiles Some details regarding these top players in the textile industry in India is given below: Bombay Dyeing: Bombay Dyeing came into existence in the year 1879 as a small company dealing with Indian spun cotton yarn dip-dyed by hand and now the company has grown into one among the top textile companies in India. They are one of the trusted and respected brand name in the textile industry and some of the products manufactured by them are: • Sports wear • Kids’ wear • Women’s wear • Men’s wear • Home furnishing like sofa covers and screen clothes • Bath towels • Bed spreads and sheets Fabindia: Fabindia is operating from its headquarters in Delhi and they are popular for their traditional techniques and hand-based processes.
    [Show full text]