A dispute over advertising claims has reached the Delhi High Court, with Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) challenging a campaign by home-care brand Beco that raises questions about the safety of ingredients in two of its widely used products, according to Bar and Bench.
HUL has filed a case against Beco’s parent company, Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, accusing it of commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. The dispute centres on Beco’s recent “WarOnWhatsHidden” campaign, which targets Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on Wednesday sought Beco’s response to HUL’s plea seeking an interim injunction against the advertisements. The court did not immediately direct Beco to withdraw or halt the campaign, stating that it wanted to hear the company’s position before reaching a decision.
The matter will next be considered on August 21, while Beco has been directed to file its response and supporting documents by August 20.
WHAT BECO’S CAMPAIGN CLAIMS
Beco’s campaign features videos, social media content, influencer promotions and outdoor advertisements comparing its laundry and dishwashing products with Surf Excel and Vim.
The company claims that laboratory tests detected Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Surf Excel, while LAS was found in Vim.
Beco’s advertisements associate these ingredients with potential skin irritation and allergic reactions, forming the basis of the campaign’s messaging.
HUL, however, has disputed how Beco has interpreted and presented these test results to consumers.
HUL CHALLENGES BECO’S TESTING
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing HUL, told the court that Beco’s laboratory tests only demonstrated the presence and concentration of certain ingredients. According to HUL, the tests did not establish that the finished products could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions when used as intended.
HUL argued that examining an individual ingredient is different from assessing the safety of an entire product formulation. The company said Beco had not conducted the appropriate safety testing required to substantiate the claims made in its advertisements.
HUL also highlighted that LAS is a commonly used surfactant in cleaning products because of its ability to remove grease and oil. The company alleged that Beco had specifically targeted Vim and presented the ingredient in a manner that could give consumers a misleading impression.
DISPUTE OVER TAGLINES AND TIMING
HUL has additionally objected to Beco’s use of its registered advertising taglines, including Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain”, while naming the products in the campaign.
The company alleged that the advertisements also ridiculed its consumers and attempted to portray HUL as misleading customers.
HUL further claimed that Beco launched the campaign late on August 14, immediately before its Independence Day sale. The company argued that the timing made it difficult to approach the court for urgent relief because the following day was a public holiday.
Beco has requested time to respond to HUL’s allegations. The court is expected to hear arguments from both sides before deciding whether the advertising campaign should be temporarily restrained.
