Urban Company Challenges Kent RO Ads Over Two-Year Purifier Claim

Kent RO Systems has agreed before the Delhi High Court to withdraw advertisements and social media posts challenging Urban Company’s claim that its Native water purifiers can operate for two years without servicing.

Urban Company approached the Delhi High Court on August 11, 2026, filing a defamation and disparagement suit against Kent RO. The dispute relates to advertisements and influencer-led social media content targeting the two-year filter life and two-year service-life offering of Urban Company’s Native M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro and M2 Pro water purifiers.

Kent RO Agrees to Withdraw Campaign

The matter was heard at length on August 12. During the proceedings, Kent RO told the court that it would take down the advertisements and promotional content that were the subject of the case.

The company also agreed not to run other advertisements or promotional material making the same or similar claims about water purifiers offering a two-year filter life or a two-year no-servicing feature in a manner that disparages Urban Company.

According to Urban Company’s regulatory filing dated August 23, Kent RO was asked to remove the advertisements and social media content within 15 days from August 12.

Urban Company said the Delhi High Court passed its order on August 12, while the order was published on the court’s website on August 22.

Dispute Over Advertising Claims

Urban Company had alleged that Kent RO’s campaign made false and misleading claims about its Native purifiers.

According to the filing, Kent’s advertisements described the two-year filter and service-life feature as a “marketing gimmick” and stated that the use of Native water purifiers was “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers.

Urban Company argued that the campaign amounted to disparagement of its products and defamation of the company.

Separate Patent Dispute Remains Sub-Judice

The legal dispute between the two companies extends beyond the advertising campaign.

Kent RO has separately filed a patent infringement suit against Urban Company, while Urban Company has filed a counterclaim against Kent RO’s patent.

Urban Company has also filed a suit alleging tortious interference against Kent RO.

According to Urban Company’s regulatory filing, these matters remain sub-judice.