Delhi HC has restrained Beco from continuing its “War on What’s Hidden” campaign against HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim ads
The court said comparative advertising is allowed, but the overall message cannot mislead consumers or unfairly disparage a rival
The court found Beco had not established its claims as prima facie true and ordered the brand to remove the disputed ads, while clarifying that it can run other legally compliant comparative ads
parent entity Kwick Living from continuing its “War on What’s Hidden” advertising campaign targeting HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim products.
The ad in question compares Beco’s cleaning products with Surf Excel and Vim dishwash gel. The campaign claimed that certain ingredients in HUL’s products could lead to skin irritation and allergic reactions, and asked consumers to “Switch to BECO”.
The HC found that Beco failed to establish the truth of the message conveyed through the campaign. As a result, the startup has been directed to pull down, remove and recall all advertisements containing the offending statements across every format and medium within one week, and file an affidavit of compliance within a week thereafter.
“Just because a comparative advertisement is derisive or denigrating or unflattering of the competitor’s product or service does not necessarily imply that it amounts to disparagement in law,” the Bench observed.
Importantly, this is an interim order. The court has not given a final ruling on whether LAS or BIT in HUL’s products cause the effects claimed by Beco. The scientific dispute can be examined through evidence and expert testimony during the trial.
The ‘War On What’s Hidden’ Campaign
The case stems from HUL’s plea against Beco’s “War on What’s Hidden” campaign, which compared Beco’s products with HUL’s Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.The campaign alleges that Surf Excel Matic Liquid contains 277 mg/kg of Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and more than 10% Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS), while Vim Dishwash Gel contained more than 8% LAS. Beco claimed that its products do not contain LAS or BIT.
In response to this, HUL alleged that the campaign amounted to commercial disparagement, trademark and trade dress infringement, copyright infringement, passing off and unfair competition.
It argued that the ads went beyond pointing out the presence of certain ingredients and gave consumers the impression that Surf Excel and Vim are unsafe for use and could cause skin irritation, redness, itching and eczema.
Beco defended the campaign, saying its claims were verified through independent NABL-accredited laboratories and supported by scientific literature and references from the WHO, OECD and European Chemicals Agency. It argued that the ads made ingredient-specific claims and did not directly state that HUL’s products were unsafe or toxic.
The court, however, said it could not determine at the interim stage which of the competing scientific claims or laboratory reports was correct. The two sides also disputed the testing methods, which the court said would require expert evidence during the trial.
The HC, however, noted that the ad campaign cannot be judged by examining each statement separately. Even if one part of an ad is technically correct, it can still be misleading depending on how its claims and visuals are presented.
“A particular element of an advertisement may, when viewed in isolation, be accurate or truthful, but when juxtaposed with its other elements, the advertisement viewed as a whole may convey a false and/or misleading and/or deceptive message to an average consumer,” the court order, dated September 10, said.
The court found that the use of complex chemical names, concentrations and percentages could give the impression that HUL’s products were risky to use. It believes that an average consumer is not expected to scientifically analyse an ad or examine its claims in detail, but is likely to take away the overall message presented.
Therefore, the campaign went beyond simply comparing Beco’s products with HUL’s products and denigrated HUL’s products while presenting the claims as being backed by scientific evidence.
The court reiterated that companies are free to highlight the strengths of their own products, including in comparison with rivals. Ultimately, the court said Beco had failed to establish at the interim stage that the material claims in the campaign were prima facie true or that they were not misleading, deceptive or misrepresentative.