Urban Company has taken its dispute with Kent RO Systems to the Delhi High Court, alleging that an advertising campaign targeting the two-year filter and service-life claims of its Native water purifiers was false, misleading and disparaging.
The company filed a defamation and disparagement suit on August 11, challenging advertisements and social media posts that allegedly described key features of Urban Company’s Native purifiers as a “marketing gimmick” and characterised the products as “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers.
The dispute covers Urban Company’s Native M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro and M2 Pro water purifiers, all of which were referenced in connection with the company’s two-year filter life and two-year service life propositions.
Kent RO tells court it will remove disputed advertisements
The matter came before the Delhi High Court on August 12. Following the hearing, Kent RO told the court that it would take down the advertisements challenged in the suit.
It also said it would not publish other advertisements or promotional material making the same or similar claims about water purifiers offering a two-year filter life or two-year no-servicing feature in a manner that disparages Urban Company.
Urban Company said the advertisements and related social media content were to be removed within 15 days of August 12.
The development is significant because the dispute goes beyond a conventional comparison between rival water purifier brands. At its core is the way companies are allowed to publicly challenge product-life and servicing claims made by competitors, particularly when those claims are accompanied by language questioning consumer safety.
The material available does not indicate that the court has ruled on the underlying accuracy of either company’s product claims. Kent RO’s decision to withdraw the disputed content followed the August 12 hearing.
What Urban Company objected to
Urban Company’s case centres on Kent RO’s alleged portrayal of the two-year filter and service proposition attached to Native purifiers.
According to Urban Company, the advertising campaign referred to those features as a “marketing gimmick” while also suggesting that using Native water purifiers could be “unsafe” or “risky”.
Those allegations now form part of the defamation and disparagement proceedings before the Delhi High Court.
The dispute is therefore not limited to whether one purifier requires servicing more frequently than another. It also concerns the language used in comparative advertising and whether statements made about a competitor’s product cross the line from commercial comparison into disparagement.
Legal battle between the companies extends beyond advertising
The advertising case is only one part of a wider legal confrontation between Urban Company and Kent RO.
Urban Company has said other proceedings between the two companies remain sub judice. These include a patent infringement suit filed by Kent RO, Urban Company’s counterclaim against Kent RO’s patent, and a separate tortious interference suit filed by Urban Company against Kent RO.
That wider backdrop makes the advertising dispute more consequential than a one-off disagreement over a marketing campaign. Multiple legal questions involving patents, commercial conduct and competitive claims are currently running alongside each other.
Urban Company shares rise in Friday trade
Urban Company shares closed 8.19% higher at ₹157.41 in Friday’s trading session, according to the report.
The available information does not establish that the share-price movement was caused by the court dispute or the advertising development.
For now, the immediate outcome is limited and clearly defined: Kent RO has told the Delhi High Court it will remove the challenged advertisements and refrain from publishing similar promotional content that disparages Urban Company over the two-year filter-life or no-servicing proposition.
The broader legal contest between the two companies, however, remains unresolved.
Also Read: iPhone 18 Pro Could Bring Major Upgrades Over iPhone 17 Pro
