The three-month period, which the committee was given to evaluate the claim, expired recently. The committee then sought an further extension of three months. The case, which has been dragging since October last year, has, thus, been further delayed.

The independent expert committee comprises three nominations, one each from HLL, Colgate-Palmolive and the MRTPC itself. The committee was set up to evaluate HLL's superiority claim in its New Pepsodent advertisement.

HLL nominated PD Marsh, a scientist of international repute as its independent expert committee suggested by the MRTPC, while Colgate-Palmolive nominated Richard Stellar.

The advertisementwas challenged by Colgate-Palmolive in the MRTPC, as it felt that the superiority claim was inaccurate and misleading.

Following Colgate's challenge in the MRTPC, HLL was asked to modify the advertisement. The MRTPC had ordered HLL to refrain from comparing its toothpaste (new Pepsodent) with any product of Colgate-Palmolive in general, and CDC in particular in its advertisement. The commission then suggested the setting up of an expert committee to look into the matter.

Meanwhile, HLL has challenged Colgate's double-protection ad which claims that the toothpaste is 2.5 times better than an ordinary toothpaste in fighting germs and preventing tooth decay.

Colgate-Palmolive is in the process of replying to the MRTPC on this issue, said Pithawala. The case will come up for hearing on July 29.

Pithawala said that Colgate's superiority claim is based on clinical tests conducted by the company and tested vis-a-vis placebos. He said the company will be filing international testimonials in the court to proveits superiority claim.