Source The economics Times
NEW DELHI — Tech-enabled home services giant Urban Company has taken water purifier manufacturer Kent RO Systems to the Delhi High Court over an advertising blitz that allegedly disparaged its Native line of water purifiers. Following the legal action, Kent RO agreed before the court to take down the contentious promotional material.
Urban Company initiated the defamation and product disparagement suit on August 11, alleging that Kent RO deployed social media posts, promotional videos, and influencer campaigns making false and misleading claims about its products. The dispute centers around the key value proposition of Urban Company’s Native series (including the M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro, and M2 Pro models), which feature an advertised “two-year filter life” and “two-year service-free” operation.
According to a regulatory filing by Urban Company on Sunday, Kent RO’s ad campaign characterized these long-life claims as a mere “marketing gimmick” and went on to label the usage of Native purifiers as “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers.
During the hearing on August 12 before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Kent RO agreed to retract the impugned advertisements. The company also committed to refraining from publishing or broadcasting similar marketing campaigns that disparage Urban Company’s claims of multi-year filter life and maintenance-free features. Under the court’s directions, Kent RO has been given a 15-day window from August 12 to scrub the disputed content across digital and social media platforms.
The legal confrontation underscores growing tensions in India’s water purification sector, where traditional manufacturers—heavily reliant on recurring spare-part sales and Annual Maintenance Contracts (AMCs)—face rising competition from digital-first disruptors offering low-maintenance hardware.
The advertising row is not an isolated flashpoint between the two companies. Urban Company noted that several other disputes remain sub judice before the courts, including a patent infringement suit brought by Kent RO, a counterclaim by Urban Company challenging Kent RO’s patent, and a separate tortious interference suit filed by Urban Company.
