Hindustan Unilever (HUL) sued Amul before the High Court of Bombay, for an alleged disparagement, the roots of which were two advertisements comparing Amul’s ice-creams to other frozen desserts, claiming that the former uses real milk while the latter (Kwality Wall’s of HUL) contains vanaspati. The visuals of the advertisement included two ice-cream cups, one labeled ‘Amul’ showing milk flowing into it, and the other labeled ‘Frozen Dessert- is made of edible vegetable oil’ showing a thick semi-solid liquid flowing into it. Here, though Kwality Wall’s was not named explicitly in the advertisements, it was rightly observed by the Court that slander of a rival’s goods is not only restricted to cases where the rival’s goods or products are expressly identified, but even a slanderous statement made against the class of rival goods would equally affect a single manufacturer whose goods form part of the same class. The Court further observed that the nature, manner and storyline of the impugned commercials convey a negative message, subsequently disparaging the entire category of products known as Frozen Desserts, of which Kwality Walls is a market leader. Such disparagement was observed to severely affect the products manufactured and sold by the HUL, thereby affecting their business.