Delhi High Court Injuncts Beco Ad Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation, Allergies

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani orally remarked, "I am injuncting your ad campaign."

The order comes after nearly a month of hearings in the disparagement suit filed by HUL against Beco on comparative advertisements.

HUL sued Kwick Living after Beco launched an advertising campaign, spanning YouTube videos, hoardings across several cities, its website and Instagram, claiming that Surf Excel and Vim contain two chemicals, referred to during the hearings as LAS and BIT.

The impugned advertisement asserted that these cause skin irritation and allergic reactions in consumers.

The campaign urged consumers to switch to Beco instead.

HUL called this a textbook case of disparagement, going well beyond permissible comparative advertising into directly telling consumers its products are unsafe.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for HUL argued that Indian courts have long drawn a firm line in advertising disputes: a company can boast that its own product is better, but it cannot claim a rival's product is bad, harmful or unsafe.

Sibal argued that Beco's claims were misleading on two counts. First, he said no test had actually been conducted on HUL's finished products, only on the presence of certain ingredients, yet the advertising translated this into a sweeping claim that the products themselves cause skin irritation.

Second, he pointed out that the ingredients in question are commonly used across the industry, meaning Beco had singled out HUL's specific brands despite the same ingredients being present more broadly in the market.

Kwick Living, represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, defended the campaign as protected comparative advertising and consumer awareness, arguing that truth is a complete defence to a disparagement claim.

He argued that the accuracy of its claims could only be conclusively tested at trial, not decided at the interim stage.