HUL Drags Beco To Delhi High Court Over Ads Claiming Surf Excel, Vim Cause Skin Allergies

HUL moved the Court against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which runs the cleaning products brand Beco, alleging that Beco's advertisements disparage HUL's detergent brands Surf Excel and Vim by claiming they contain chemicals that cause skin irritation and allergies.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard extensive arguments from HUL but did not pass any interim orders today, choosing instead to hear Beco's side before deciding the question of interim injunction.

The disputed advertisements claim that two chemicals, LAS and BIT, used in HUL's products cause skin irritation and allergies. HUL alleges that the advertisements urge consumers to switch to Beco products.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for HUL, argued that the advertisements go beyond permissible comparative advertising. He said Beco had crossed the line by portraying HUL's products as harmful.

"Once you denigrate, the law tests you by the highest standard," he told the court, arguing that even a claim containing some truth can still be unfair or misleading, and that truth is not an absolute defence in a disparagement case.

Sibal argued the ads take a finding about one ingredient, drawn from an old international regulatory report on prolonged, direct skin contact with that chemical in isolation, and misleadingly present it as if HUL's actual products had been tested and found to cause the same harm.

He submitted that no such testing of the finished products had in fact been carried out by Beco, even though a domestic testing standard exists specifically for this purpose, one that HUL says it did use to test its own products, with the results showing no adverse effects.

He also pointed out that Beco appeared to rely on an outdated report while ignoring a more recent one from the same regulator, and argued that Beco's own product contains a similar surfactant despite its marketing claiming to be free of "harsh chemicals."

Sibal argued the balance of convenience favoured an injunction, since Beco remains free to promote its products without referencing HUL's brands, whereas HUL, as the long-standing market leader in this category, stands to suffer lasting reputational harm if the campaign continues.

Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall, appearing for Kwick Living, sought more time to file a reply, but the court directed that the reply, even if unsigned, be filed and an advance copy shared with HUL by the end of the day tomorrow.

The court did not pass an ad-interim injunction after hearing HUL's submissions. Justice Bhambhani said he wanted to hear Beco “equally” before deciding the interim application.

The court directed Beco to file its reply before the next hearing and issued notice on the interim application.

The matter has been listed for further hearing, with the court indicating it intends to rule on the interim injunction application at that stage rather than let it linger as an interim arrangement.