Delhi High Court Reserves Verdict On HUL's Interim Plea Over Beco Ads Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Irritation
The Delhi High Court has reserved judgment on Hindustan Unilever Limited's plea for an interim injunction against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which runs the cleaning products brand Beco.
The court heard arguments from both sides in the disparagement dispute over Beco's advertisements claiming Surf Excel and Vim cause skin irritation and allergies.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded that judgment was reserved on the matter for interim measures.
HUL moved the Court against Beco, alleging that Beco's advertisements disparaged HUL's brands Surf Excel and Vim by claiming they contain chemicals that cause skin irritation and allergies.
The disputed advertisements claim that two chemicals used in HUL's detergents, referred to during the hearing as LAS and BIT, cause skin irritation and allergic reactions and urge consumers to switch to Beco instead.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for HUL, argued this goes well beyond ordinary comparative advertising, where a company can say its own product is better, into territory the law does not allow, directly calling a rival's product harmful.
Beco's defence rested broadly on three planks: that comparative advertising is protected commercial speech under the Constitution, that truth is a complete defence to a disparagement claim, and that since truth can only really be tested at trial, no interim injunction should be granted now unless the defence of truth is bound to fail outright.
In reply, Amit Sibal argued each of these propositions was flawed except the narrow point that truth itself has to be finally decided at trial. He submitted that comparative advertising loses its constitutional protection the moment it becomes deceptive, unfair, misleading, or untruthful.
On the specific claims in Beco's campaign, Sibal reiterated that it goes beyond merely referencing ingredients found in HUL's products and directly tells consumers that Surf Excel and Vim "cause skin irritation" and allergies, an assertion he argued was not backed by any actual test of the finished products themselves.
With submissions from both sides concluded and Beco's written note taken on record, the court reserved its judgment on HUL's application for an interim injunction.