HUL Seeks Legal Relief Against Beco’s Ad Campaign
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has initiated legal proceedings in the Delhi High Court against Beco, a home-care brand, over its recent advertising campaign. The campaign in question alleges that HUL’s renowned products, Surf Excel and Vim, contain chemicals that can potentially cause skin irritation and allergic reactions.
Court Proceedings and Immediate Response
On Wednesday, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani presided over the case, directing Beco to respond to HUL’s plea for an interim injunction against the campaign. The Court has scheduled another hearing for Friday, August 21. During this session, the Court refrained from issuing an immediate order to halt the advertisements, expressing a desire to consider Beco’s response before making a decision on HUL’s interim application.
Allegations of Disparagement and Trademark Infringement
HUL’s lawsuit accuses Beco’s parent company, Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, of commercial disparagement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The contentious ‘ #WarOnWhatsHidden’ campaign employs videos, social media posts, influencers, and outdoor hoardings to draw direct comparisons between Beco’s laundry and dishwashing products and HUL’s Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.
Analysis of Chemical Ingredients
Beco’s campaign highlights laboratory findings that identified the presence of Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Surf Excel, and LAS in Vim. The company claims these ingredients are linked to skin irritation and allergic reactions.
HUL’s Defense and Arguments
Representing HUL, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that Beco’s campaign was misleading. He noted that Beco’s tests focused solely on ingredient presence and concentration, without assessing whether the finished products caused irritation when used as intended. Sibal asserted that Beco’s portrayal of LAS, a common surfactant, was deceptive, as it is widely used in cleaning products for its grease and oil removal capabilities.
More Read
HUL also contended that the advertisements mocked users of its products and implied that the company was misleading consumers. Specific objections were raised against the use of HUL’s registered taglines, such as Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain”, to single out its products negatively.
Timing and Reach of the Campaign
HUL claimed that Beco launched the campaign just before Independence Day, anticipating that the company would face challenges in approaching the court during the holiday period. The campaign, which has already garnered significant attention, features on hoardings across major cities, including Delhi.
Beco’s Request for Time and Court’s Directive
Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, representing Beco, requested additional time to prepare the company’s response and compile supporting documents. The Court instructed Beco to submit their reply by August 20, indicating a comprehensive review of both parties’ arguments before ruling on the interim injunction application.
More Read
Amit Sibal was supported by advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sneha Jain, and Vivek Ayyagari from Saikrishna & Associates. Chander Lall’s team included advocate Shwetasree Majumdar from Fidus Law Chambers.
