HUL Moves Delhi High Court Against Beco Over Ads Targeting Surf Excel and Vim
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has approached the Delhi High Court to challenge an advertising campaign launched by home-care brand Beco, accusing the company of commercial disparagement, trademark infringement, and passing off. The legal dispute focuses on Beco’s promotional drive questioning the safety of ingredients present in two widely sold household cleaners: Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.
What Happened
HUL filed a plea against Beco’s parent entity, Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, seeking an interim injunction against the promotional push titled ‘WarOnWhatsHidden’. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani considered the matter and issued a notice seeking Beco’s response to HUL’s application for an interim stay.
The court declined to grant an immediate order halting the campaign, indicating it intends to hear Beco’s position before making a decision. Beco was directed to file its reply along with supporting material by August 20, with the court scheduling the next hearing for August 21.
Key Highlights
- Campaign Claims: Across online videos, influencer tie-ups, social media, and outdoor billboards, Beco claimed laboratory tests showed Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Vim Dishwash Gel, as well as both LAS and Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in Surf Excel Matic Liquid. The advertisements linked these components to potential skin irritation and allergic issues.
- HUL’s Counterarguments: Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing HUL, argued before the court that testing individual chemical components is distinct from assessing the safety of a finished product formulation under normal usage conditions. HUL maintained that Beco failed to conduct tests proving the complete products cause harm.
- Role of Ingredients: HUL highlighted that LAS is an extensively used surfactant relied upon to break down oil and grease in cleaning formulations, asserting that Beco selectively targeted Vim in a manner that could mislead buyers.
- Trademark Concerns: The plea contends that Beco misused HUL’s registered brand slogans, including Surf Excel’s ‘Daag Achhe Hain’ and Vim’s ‘100 nimbuon ki shakti’, while also alleging the campaign mocked customers.
- Campaign Timing: HUL pointed out that Beco debuted the campaign during the late hours of August 14, just prior to its Independence Day sale, which limited HUL’s ability to seek urgent legal intervention due to the holiday.
Why This Matters
The case brings legal scrutiny to competitive advertising practices, specifically how consumer product brands communicate laboratory findings regarding chemical ingredients. The proceedings highlight HUL’s assertion that ingredient-level laboratory identification does not equate to clinical proof of harm from finished, formulated products during regular consumer use.
What to Watch Next
Beco is scheduled to submit its formal reply and related evidentiary materials by August 20. The Delhi High Court will resume hearing arguments from both sides on August 21 to determine whether an interim injunction should be granted to halt Beco’s advertising campaign.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which products are central to the dispute?
The dispute involves Beco’s advertising campaign targeting two HUL cleaning products: Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.
What did Beco’s campaign allege about HUL’s products?
Beco alleged that laboratory analysis detected Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Vim, and both LAS and Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) in Surf Excel, asserting that these ingredients could lead to skin irritation and allergic reactions.
Did the Delhi High Court grant an immediate injunction?
No. The court opted not to issue an immediate restraining order and instead asked Beco to present its reply and supporting documents before deciding on interim relief.
Source: Based on reporting from India Today and Bar and Bench.