A new legal dispute has emerged in India's water-purifier market after Urban Company approached the Delhi High Court against Kent RO Systems over advertisements and social media content targeting its NATIVE range of water purifiers.
Urban Company filed a defamation and product disparagement suit on August 11, 2026, alleging that Kent's promotional campaign contained false and misleading claims about its products. The dispute centres on Urban Company's NATIVE M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro and M2 Pro purifiers.
Dispute Over Two-Year Filter Life
According to Urban Company's allegations, its NATIVE purifiers offer a two-year filter life and a two-year no-servicing feature. The company claims that Kent's advertisements questioned these features and described them as a “marketing gimmick.”
Urban Company further alleged that the campaign portrayed the use of its NATIVE purifiers as “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers. The company argued that such claims could damage the reputation of its products and mislead potential buyers.
The case was heard by the Delhi High Court on August 12. During the proceedings, Kent agreed to remove the advertisements and related social media content that were the subject of the dispute.
Kent Agrees to Remove Disputed Ads
As part of the development, Kent told the court that it would remove the disputed promotional material and would not publish similar advertisements making claims that disparage Urban Company's water purifiers offering a two-year filter life or two-year no-servicing feature.
Kent was given 15 days from August 12 to remove the advertisements and related social media posts. Although the court passed its order on August 12, the order was published on the Delhi High Court website on August 22.
The development does not mean that all legal disputes between the two companies have been resolved. Several other cases involving Urban Company and Kent remain pending.
Other Legal Disputes Continue
The two companies are also involved in a separate patent infringement dispute. Kent has filed a patent infringement case against Urban Company, while Urban Company has filed a counterclaim challenging Kent's patent.
Urban Company has also filed another case concerning alleged tortious interference. The companies have previously been involved in litigation over the availability of NATIVE purifiers on e-commerce platforms.
The latest advertising dispute therefore represents one part of a broader legal battle between the two businesses.
Why the Case Matters
The dispute highlights the increasingly competitive nature of India's water-purifier market, where product claims such as filter longevity, servicing requirements and maintenance costs can influence consumer purchasing decisions.
Comparative advertising can be a powerful marketing tool, but claims concerning a competitor's products can also create legal risks if they are alleged to be misleading, disparaging or unsupported.
For consumers, the case is particularly relevant because the dispute centres on claims about filter life and servicing requirements. However, the allegations made by Urban Company should not be interpreted as a court finding that Kent's original claims were factually false. The latest development concerns Kent's undertaking to remove the disputed advertisements and avoid similar promotional claims.
The legal proceedings and other pending cases will determine the broader issues between the companies. For now, the withdrawal of the disputed advertisements marks a significant development in the ongoing Urban Company-Kent RO dispute.
