In short
- ASCI allows named comparisons if the aspects are clear, the claims factual, accurate and substantiated, and no rival is unfairly denigrated. Most brands still require written approval.
- Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act treats advertising that takes unfair advantage of a registered mark as infringement. Section 30(1) protects honest identification of the owner's goods.
- Giving false or misleading facts that disparage a rival's goods, services or trade is an unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- Put competitor mentions, rival logos and versus formats in a brief rule, with an evidence file behind every claim. Platforms will not judge a trademark dispute for you.
A creator may compare your product with a competitor's if the comparison is factual, accurate and capable of substantiation, and if it does not take unfair advantage of the rival's mark or unfairly run the rival down. Those are ASCI's tests in Chapter IV of its Code. Two statutes sit behind them: the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with how a registered mark may be used in advertising, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which treats false disparagement as an unfair trade practice.
This post goes one level below our ASCI influencer guidelines explainer and our brand liability guide, and answers a narrow brief question: what may a creator say about, or show of, someone else's brand? It sits under our complete guide to influencer marketing in India. Our reading of each provision is marked as our reading, and we found no court decision applying any of them to creator content.
Four rulebooks, one question
| Source | Provision | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| ASCI Code, Chapter IV | Comparisons | Permitted, including with a named competitor, if it is clear what aspects are compared, the subject is not chosen to confer an artificial advantage, the comparison is factual, accurate and capable of substantiation, consumers are not misled, and rivals are not unfairly denigrated |
| ASCI Code, Chapter IV | Trademark and goodwill; imitation | No unjustifiable use of another firm's name or initials, no unfair advantage of the goodwill in its trademark or symbol, and no similarity to an earlier advertiser's layout, copy, slogans, visuals or music so as to suggest plagiarism |
| CCPA guidelines, 2022 | Rule 12 | Comparisons must be capable of substantiation; no reference to a person, firm or institution that gives an unjustified advantage or tends to bring it into ridicule or disrepute, unless permission was obtained |
| Consumer Protection Act, 2019 | Section 2(47)(i)(j) | Giving false or misleading facts that disparage another person's goods, services or trade is an unfair trade practice |
Rule 3 of the CCPA guidelines applies them to the advertiser, any advertising agency and any endorser whose services are used. ASCI's Code applies to all who commission, create, place or publish an ad. A comparison made in a creator's Reel is therefore the brand's comparison too.
What the Trade Marks Act adds
For a registered mark, section 29 lists several routes to infringement. Four matter for creator content.
- Use in advertising. Section 29(6)(d) says a person uses a registered mark if, in particular, they use it on business papers or in advertising.
- Unauthorised advertising material. Section 29(7) covers applying a registered mark to material for advertising goods or services, if the person knew or had reason to believe the application was not duly authorised.
- Advertising that trades on the mark. Section 29(8) says a registered mark is infringed by any advertising of the mark that takes unfair advantage of it and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, or is detrimental to its distinctive character, or is against its reputation.
- Spoken use. Section 29(9) extends the Act to spoken use of the words in a mark, which matters for voiceovers.
Section 30(1) is the counterweight. It says nothing in section 29 prevents using a registered mark to identify the goods or services as those of its proprietor, provided the use is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters and does not take unfair advantage of, or harm, the mark's distinctive character or repute. Section 30(2)(a) separately allows use that indicates the kind, quality, intended purpose, value or other characteristics of goods or services.
Our reading is that naming a rival's product in a fair, substantiated comparison is identification of the owner's goods, the use section 30(1) addresses, while a banner built from a rival's logo to borrow its standing sits closer to section 29(8). Honest practice and unfair advantage are fact questions, and we cannot tell you where a court would draw the line. Section 27(1) bars infringement actions for unregistered marks, but section 27(2) keeps passing off available, so an unregistered rival name is not free for the taking.
Six situations creators produce
| Situation | Main risk | Brief rule | Where the rule comes from |
|---|---|---|---|
| Side-by-side test: A versus B | An aspect chosen to flatter you; poor test design | Allow only with an approved protocol, both products bought at retail, results shown unedited | ASCI Chapter IV; CCPA rule 12(a) |
| "I switched from X" | A statement of fact about the rival that you cannot prove | Allow only if the creator actually used X; keep to their own experience, not claims about X | CCPA rule 13(1): an endorsement must reflect genuine, current opinion based on real experience |
| Rival's logo or pack on screen | Borrowing the rival's reputation | Plain identification of a product in use is the tolerable end; no overlays, edits or logo-led thumbnails | Trade Marks Act ss. 29(8), 30(1) |
| Rival's name in a hashtag, tag or caption to attract viewers | Unjustifiable use of the name; unfair advantage of goodwill | Bar it unless an approved script uses it | ASCI Chapter IV |
| Mockery, memes or voiceovers about a rival | False or misleading disparagement; ridicule or disrepute | Bar unless legal approves each line | Consumer Protection Act s. 2(47)(i)(j); CCPA rule 12(c) |
| "Dupe" or "alternative to [rival]" content | Suggesting a connection or similarity; imitation of a rival's look | Treat as an approval item; describe the product on its own terms | Trade Marks Act s. 29(2); ASCI Chapter IV on imitation |
For the dupe row we found no authority specific to dupes, and the rule is a precaution drawn from the general provisions.
A comparison that survives a complaint
- Name the aspect. "Battery life under this test" is a comparison. "Better" is a boast.
- Pick the aspect honestly. ASCI says the subject must not be chosen to confer an artificial advantage or suggest a better bargain than is true.
- Buy both products at retail, on the same day, in the same variant.
- Record the protocol. Steps, conditions, dates, the person who ran it, raw footage. You must produce substantiation when called on, under ASCI's Chapter I and CCPA rule 12(a).
- Cite research with source and date, as Chapter I and CCPA rule 12(b) expect for independent research.
- Check superlatives. ASCI's guidelines on awards and rankings say they should come from credible, recognised, independent bodies using rigorous methods. "India's number one" needs that evidence.
- Keep the tone factual. ASCI looks for unfair denigration, directly or by implication.
- Send it through legal, with the evidence file, before the script is locked.
Protecting your own marks in creator content
The same rules protect you. Give creators your logo and pack shots in the approved form, and say in the brief that they may not alter them, use them as a hashtag for unrelated content, or adopt your name in a handle or product name. Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act says a registered mark is infringed by a person who uses it as their trade name or part of it, for goods or services in respect of which it is registered. A fan account that sells nothing is a different case, but one selling a lookalike product under your name is not. Put the permission and its limits in the licence schedule so the creator's right to show your marks is written, not assumed.
When a creator compares you unfairly
Capture the post, caption, comments and the account, with the time. Then ask who paid. If a rival brand commissioned it, ASCI's procedures allow an intra-industry complaint, which is free through the general route, discloses your identity to the other side, and has a paid Fast Track if both parties are ASCI members. Our ASCI complaint process post sets out the steps.
Platforms are slow and cautious on trademark disputes. Instagram says it cannot adjudicate disputes between third parties and will not act on reports that need in-depth trademark analysis, suggesting you contact the poster directly or go to court, and it provides the rights owner's name and report details to the poster. YouTube says it will not mediate trademark disputes, does a limited investigation of reasonable complaints, removes content in clear cases, and forwards the complaint to the uploader. For false facts that disparage your goods, ask counsel about the consumer-law and civil routes, which we have not sourced here. The mechanics of each platform route are in influencer content takedown process.
Clauses for the brief and contract
No competitor references. The Creator shall not name, show, tag, hashtag or compare any other brand, product or person unless the approved script says so.
Approved comparisons only. Any comparison shall use only the claims, test protocol and evidence in the approved claims sheet. The Creator shall not alter the test or edit its results.
Third-party marks. The Creator shall not use any third-party logo or mark except as it appears in the approved script, and shall not alter it.
Experience statements. Statements about the Creator's own use of any product shall be true and based on actual use.
What we could not source
We found no court decision on comparative advertising, disparagement or the use of a rival's mark in creator content, no authority on hashtags, keywords or dupe formats, and no source for the consumer-law complaint route for disparagement. We read the Gazette text of the Trade Marks Act as published by DPIIT, because India Code's copy would not open, and we did not check later amendments. Confirm each section before you rely on it.
Our influencer marketing strategy service covers the claims sheet and approval design, and our celebrity and macro influencer service shows how we handle contracts for the biggest names. To have a comparison campaign checked before it is shot, ask for a creator plan. For the dispute side, see influencer dispute resolution.
This is general information, not legal advice.
Sources
- The ASCI Code: Chapter I (substantiation, references to persons, firms or institutions) and Chapter IV (comparative advertising, trademark and goodwill, imitation), ASCI (undated page, accessed 1 Nov 2026)
- ASCI guidelines for usage of awards and rankings in advertisements (21 Apr 2022), ASCI (undated page, accessed 1 Nov 2026)
- Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022 (rules 3, 12 and 13), Central Consumer Protection Authority, Gazette of India (9 Jun 2022)
- The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (section 2(47)(i)(j): unfair trade practice includes disparagement), Gazette of India (9 Aug 2019)
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (sections 27, 29 and 30), Gazette text as published by DPIIT; later amendments not checked, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (1999 text, accessed 1 Nov 2026)
- How to report trademark infringement on Instagram or Threads, Instagram Help Centre (Meta) (undated, accessed 1 Nov 2026)
- File a trademark complaint, YouTube Help (Google) (undated, accessed 1 Nov 2026)
- ASCI Complaints Procedures (edition January 2025): intra-industry complaints, ASCI (January 2025)
Frequently asked questions
Can an influencer compare our product with a competitor's?
Yes, if it meets ASCI's Chapter IV conditions: the aspects compared are clear, the subject is not chosen to give an artificial advantage, the comparison is factual, accurate and capable of substantiation, it does not mislead and it does not unfairly denigrate. The advertiser must hold the evidence. Our compliance checklist shows where that sits.
Can a creator show a competitor's logo or pack?
Showing a rival's pack to identify it in a fair, substantiated comparison is the use section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act addresses, if it is honest and does not take unfair advantage of the mark. Overlaying or editing a rival's logo to borrow its reputation is where section 29(8) bites. We found no decision on creator content, so ask counsel.
What if a creator attacks or mocks our brand?
Giving false or misleading facts that disparage another person's goods, services or trade is an unfair trade practice under section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Capture the post, check who paid for it, and use the routes in this post and our content takedown process.
Is it safe to use a competitor's name as a hashtag or tag?
We found no authority on hashtags or keywords. ASCI's Chapter IV bars unjustifiable use of the name or initials of another firm and taking unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to its trademark, so most brands ban rival names in hashtags, tags and captions unless an approved script uses them.
What evidence do we need for a cheaper or better claim?
ASCI's Chapter I says claims and comparisons on objectively ascertainable facts must be capable of substantiation, and advertisers and agencies must produce it when called on. CCPA rule 12 adds the source and date of any independent research. Keep a dated file for each claim. Our ASCI complaint process post shows how it is used.
Does an unregistered brand name have any protection?
Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act says no one can sue for infringement of an unregistered mark, but it preserves actions for passing off. So an unregistered name is not defenceless, though a registered mark gives a stronger route. Ask counsel which route fits your brand.