HUL takes Beco to court over Surf Excel, Vim skin-risk claims

NEW DELHI: The detergent battle has moved from the laundry aisle to the courtroom. Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has approached the Delhi High Court against home-care brand Beco over an advertising campaign alleging that ingredients found in Surf Excel and Vim can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions.

HUL has accused Beco’s parent company, Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, of commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. It has also sought an interim injunction against the campaign.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to Beco but stopped short of ordering an immediate removal of the advertisements. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the court wanted to hear Beco before deciding HUL’s interim plea. The matter will next be heard on August 21.

The dispute centres on Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign, which has run across videos, social media, influencer promotions and outdoor advertising. The campaign directly compares Beco products with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.

Beco’s advertisements claim laboratory tests detected Benzisothiazolinone, or BIT, and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate, or LAS, in Surf Excel, and LAS in Vim. The campaign then links these ingredients to skin irritation and allergic reactions.

HUL disputes the interpretation of those findings.

Senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for HUL, told the court that Beco had tested the products for the presence and concentration of the ingredients, but had not tested whether the finished Surf Excel and Vim formulations themselves caused irritation or allergic reactions under normal conditions of use.

HUL argued that the potential effects of an individual ingredient cannot automatically be attributed to a finished product containing it. The company also said a prescribed test for evaluating the finished formulation was available but had not been conducted by Beco.

HUL described the advertisements as misleading and disparaging. It also argued that LAS is a commonly used surfactant that helps cleaning products remove grease and oil, and said Beco’s campaign presented its presence in Vim as inherently harmful.

HUL has also objected to Beco’s use of its registered advertising lines, including Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain” and Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti”, to identify the products featured in the campaign.

The company argued that while comparative advertising is permitted, it cannot cross the line into denigrating a competitor’s products.

Beco has not yet filed its substantive response to HUL’s allegations. Senior advocate Chander M Lall, representing Kwick Living, sought time to submit a reply and supporting material. The court has directed Beco to file its response before the next hearing.

For now, the court has made no finding on whether Beco’s advertising claims are misleading or whether Surf Excel and Vim pose the health risks alleged in the campaign. The next hearing on August 21 could provide the next round in this increasingly public detergent duel.