Urban Company’s two-year filter-life proposition for its NATIVE water purifiers has become the centre of a legal fight with rival Kent RO Systems, after a Delhi High Court hearing resulted in Kent agreeing to withdraw advertisements that Urban Company said portrayed the claim as unsafe and misleading.
The dispute puts the spotlight on a product feature that has become central to competition in India’s water-purifier market: reducing the frequency and cost of filter replacement and servicing.
What Sparked The Dispute
Urban Company filed the defamation and product-disparagement suit against Kent RO on August 11, 2026. According to the company’s regulatory disclosure, Kent’s advertising campaign targeted the two-year filter-life and two-year no-servicing features associated with NATIVE’s M0, M1, M2, M1 Pro and M2 Pro models.
Urban Company alleged that Kent’s advertisements and social-media content described the proposition as a “marketing gimmick” and suggested that using NATIVE purifiers was “unsafe” and “risky” for consumers.
What The Delhi High Court Ordered
Kent agreed to withdraw the advertisements at issue and undertook not to publish advertisements or promotional material making the same or substantially similar disparaging claims about two-year filter-life or no-servicing propositions.
Urban Company’s latest disclosure said the advertisements and social-media content covered by the proceedings were to be removed within 15 days of August 12. The court passed its order on August 12, although it was uploaded on the Delhi High Court website on August 22.
Urban Company Raises The Stakes
The legal dispute comes as Urban Company continues to expand NATIVE beyond its original two-year proposition.
On August 5, urban company launched the NATIVE M3 and M3 Pro. Urban Company said the new range uses filters designed to last up to three years, while the M3 Pro comes with an unconditional three-year warranty.
That makes the Kent dispute particularly relevant to the company’s broader consumer-products strategy. NATIVE is no longer being positioned only around a single two-year filter claim. Urban Company is progressively building a product proposition around longer maintenance intervals and lower ownership friction.
Legal Battle Remains Open
The immediate advertising dispute has produced a clear interim outcome, but the wider confrontation between the two companies is not over.
Urban Company has disclosed that other proceedings involving Kent RO remain sub judice, including a patent infringement suit filed by Kent, Urban Company’s counterclaim concerning Kent’s patent, and a separate tortious interference suit filed by Urban Company.
The latest Delhi High Court development therefore settles neither company’s broader technical or legal arguments. It establishes a narrower position on the advertising campaign: Kent has agreed to withdraw the disputed material and refrain from substantially similar disparaging promotions.
