There is another meaningless and distasteful ad war erupting between two Goliaths Hindustan Lever and Procter and Gamble involving two popular detergent brands Rin and Tide. While it is not common to see advertisements loaded with indirect and circumlocutory messages taking digs at products of the rivals. The Hindustan Lever's advertisement forms one of the those rarest instances in which the multinational company takes the name of the product and does a favorable analysis of its own brand by making a comparison with that of its rival. Apart from the host of legal issues this episode exposes , there are some ethical issues as well.     The Legal Perspective   From the legal point of view there are identical cases where two competing brands resorted to some cheap and ethically not so acceptable methods to disparage the rival brand to score a few brownie points. But then commercial practices are not sadly products of pure ethics. There is a grey area in the interpretation of what exactly constitutes disparagement. The famous case between Horlicks Vs. Complan before the Delhi Court was on similar grounds. More recently a case between Dabur India Vs. Colortec Meghalaya , the same court decided the case in favor of the defendant citing the Supeme Court decision in the case between Tata Press Vs. MTNL and elaborated the proposition of 'commercial speech' which is a fundamental right to be afforded protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution which covers freedom of speech. While delivering this judgement the Supreme Court made a pointed reference to the US decision of Virginia State Board of Pharmacy Vs. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.   Commercial Speech and False and Misleading Speech distinguished   A seller can always exercise his right to make a commercial speech to enhance the saleability of his products which is a part of his fundamental right. It also serves another purpose of disseminating knowledge about specific products enabling the people at large to take well-informed buy decisions. And as long as this right is exercised within the parameters of fair and factual basis it enjoys legal protection but if it degenerates into an exercise of the propagation of a false, misleading and deceptive marketing drive, such legal protection is not available and the affected party may succeed in obtaining an injunction order restraining it from carrying on this marketing campaign.   On the basis of the judgements made on similar cases Hindustan Lever seems to be on a firmer ground but considering public outrage and outcry on its dubious marketing practices P & G may have already won the case from the ethical points of view.