Delhi High Court Reserves Order On Jurisdiction In HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Beco

The Delhi High Court on Monday concluded hearing arguments on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction in Hindustan Unilever Limited's disparagement suit against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which runs the cleaning brand Beco.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani reserved the order on jurisdiction after hearing both sides at length, while making it clear that no interim or ad-interim order would be passed before deciding the question of jurisdiction.

The jurisdictional objection arose from Kwick Living's contention that the dispute has no real connection with Delhi.

Appearing for HUL, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that Delhi courts have jurisdiction because the allegedly disparaging advertisements form part of an online and social media campaign accessible to viewers in Delhi. He also submitted that Beco's website allows consumers in Delhi to place orders, meaning that the alleged harm is not merely capable of reaching the city but can actually be experienced there.

Further, Sibal referred to precedents concerning online advertising and e-commerce to address the distinction between mere accessibility of a website or streaming platform in a particular jurisdiction and cases involving actual commercial engagement there. He submitted that HUL's case goes beyond mere accessibility since the campaign is interactive and a consumer in Delhi can place an order through Beco's website, strengthening the connection between the dispute and Delhi.

Kwick Living, however, argued that a claim of disparagement, involving alleged harm to the reputation of goods, is akin to defamation and is therefore subject to the jurisdictional rule applicable to such claims, which links jurisdiction to where the wrong occurred or where the parties reside.

Sibal disputed the contention, arguing first that the provision relied upon by Kwick Living applies only to suits seeking monetary compensation and therefore does not govern HUL's suit, which seeks an injunction against the advertisements. He further submitted that product disparagement and defamation of a person are legally distinct causes of action governed by separate lines of precedent, and that decisions restricting jurisdiction in defamation cases cannot automatically be applied to a dispute concerning advertising claims about a product.

He also informed the Court that the company had not yet addressed the merits of its plea for an injunction and had further material to place on that issue. The Judge made clear that those submissions would be considered only if HUL succeeds on the jurisdiction question.

The Bench further declined to pass any interim or ad-interim order, including on HUL's request concerning the continuation of Beco's advertisement campaign, until it decides the jurisdiction issue.

Accordingly, with arguments on territorial jurisdiction complete, the High Court reserved its order on the issue.