In a significant development in the ongoing 'water purifier wars,' Kent RO Systems has informed the Delhi High Court of its decision to withdraw a series of advertisements that challenged Urban Company's assertion of a two-year filter life for its water purifiers. The undertaking came after Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani observed that Urban Company had presented a compelling initial case for an ad interim injunction against the ads.
The Core of the Dispute: Filter Longevity
The contention primarily revolves around Urban Company's Native M1 and M2 water purifiers, which are marketed with a key selling proposition: operating for up to two years without requiring routine servicing or filter replacement under specific conditions. Kent's advertisements had directly attacked this claim, labeling it as “completely false,” a “marketing gimmick,” and “fake.” Some ads even warned of “serious health and equipment risk” from relying on a purifier for two years without maintenance.
Delhi High Court's Observations
During the proceedings, Justice Bhambhani expressed concerns about the nature of Kent's advertising campaign. The court questioned whether Kent's advertisements were genuinely promoting its own products or primarily aimed at discrediting Urban Company's technology. “You’re not saying why we should buy Kent,” the judge remarked, according to reports.
Justice Bhambhani also criticized the broad and sweeping language used in Kent’s advertisements, particularly claims that the two-year filter-life technology was inherently false or unsafe. The judge highlighted the disparaging nature of statements like “These are all fake claims. These are false marketing gimmicks, etcetera. You don’t say this.”
Urban Company's Defense and Investment
Represented by Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, Urban Company defended its technology, stating it had invested approximately ₹80 crore in advertising the two-year no-servicing feature. The company also claimed a significant 42% market share among water purifiers offering similar extended filter-life technology.
Urban Company detailed that its technology incorporates multiple systems, including pre-filtration, smart-rinse, anti-scalant dosing, and auto-flush, all designed to reduce clogging and significantly extend filter life. To substantiate its claims, Urban Company submitted laboratory reports to the court. These reports indicated that its purifiers were tested using around 12,000 litres of water with TDS levels ranging from 1,500 to 2,000 parts per million (PPM). The company asserted that 12,000 litres represents the average household water consumption over a two-year period.
Furthermore, Urban Company alleged that Kent had falsely claimed its two-year filter-life assertion was based on testing at only 750 PPM TDS. Urban Company stated it had previously informed Kent via a legal notice about its products being tested at much higher TDS levels, yet Kent continued to propagate the lower TDS claim in its advertisements.
Kent's Counter-Arguments
Kent, represented by Senior Advocate Rajeshwari Hariharan, argued that a purifier filter's lifespan cannot be assessed independently of its usage conditions. Kent contended that factors such as water hardness, turbidity, TDS levels, and overall water consumption critically affect filter performance and longevity. The company also pointed to the fine print in Urban Company’s own advertisements, suggesting that the two-year claim was contingent on specific testing conditions. Kent emphasized that water quality varies widely across India, making a uniform two-year guarantee potentially misleading.
Resolution and Undertaking
While acknowledging that water quality and consumption influence filter life, Justice Bhambhani maintained concerns about the sweeping nature of Kent’s allegations. Following the court’s observations, Kent agreed to withdraw the disputed advertisements within 10 days. The company also committed to refraining from publishing or circulating any future advertisements or promotional materials that contain substantially similar disparaging claims against Urban Company’s two-year filter-life or no-servicing proposition. The court recorded Kent’s undertaking, opting for this agreement instead of issuing a formal interim injunction.