CS(COMM) 904/2026; I.A. 22515/2026

Background

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) filed a commercial suit seeking an interim injunction against Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which operates under the BECO brand, over its multi-platform advertising campaign, #WarOnWhatsHidden. The campaign featured HUL’s Vim Dishwash Gel and Surf Excel products, their trade dress, and well-known taglines, while claiming that certain ingredients in those products could cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. Consumers were encouraged to switch to BECO products.

BECO also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court at the threshold. The Division Bench, after noting BECO’s GST registration and business presence in Delhi as well as hoardings carrying the campaign in Delhi, gave a prima facie finding that the suit was maintainable before the Delhi High Court and remanded the matter for consideration of HUL’s interim injunction application, while keeping the larger reference on jurisdiction open.

Contentions of the Parties

HUL

1. HUL argued that BECO’s campaign amounted to commercial disparagement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and unfair competition.
2. HUL contended that BECO’s advertisements falsely portrayed HUL’s products as unsafe, despite their compliance with applicable regulatory and safety standards.

BECO

1. BECO argued that comparative advertising is lawful and that competitors may use truthful information to highlight product features and ingredients.
2. BECO relied on NABL-accredited laboratory reports and maintained that the advertisements referred only to the potential effects of the ingredients, rather than making absolute claims.

Court’s Ruling

On a prima facie assessment, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of HUL, holding as follows:

1. Overall Impact Test: Even if individual ingredient-level claims may appear accurate in isolation, the combined message of an advertisement may still be misleading if it conveys to an average consumer that the finished products are unsafe in ordinary use.
2. Disparagement Found: The Court found that the juxtaposition of chemical names, percentages, visuals of HUL products, health-risk messaging, and the call to “Switch to BECO” created a prima facie misleading impression that HUL’s products were risky to use, amounting to denigration presented as scientifically verified information.
3. Truth Defence: The Court emphasized that truth cannot be assessed by isolating individual statements; the enquiry must also consider whether the advertisement, when viewed as a whole, conveys a false, misleading, or deceptive message to the average consumer.

The Court issued the following directions:

1. BECO must remove and recall all advertisements under the #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign within one week.
2. BECO must file a compliance affidavit within the following week.
3. The order does not restrict lawful, non-disparaging comparative advertising.

Key Takeaways

1. Comparative advertisements should be assessed by their overall impact on an average consumer; even truthful individual statements may be actionable if the advertisement, viewed as a whole, is misleading.
2. Fear-based advertising that portrays a competitor’s products as unsafe in ordinary use may amount to commercial disparagement.
3. Use of a competitor’s trademarks, trade dress, or taglines in a disparaging context may exceed the limits of permissible comparative advertising.