HUL seeks Delhi HC injunction against Beco campaign on Surf Excel, Vim

MUMBAI: The gloves are off and the cleaning aisle is getting a little less squeaky clean. Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has approached the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction against home-care brand Beco’s campaign targeting its Surf Excel and Vim products.

The dispute centres on Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign, which compares its laundry and dishwashing liquids with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel, while claiming that certain ingredients in the HUL products can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions.

According to Bar and Bench, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on Wednesday sought Beco’s response to HUL’s plea but did not immediately halt the advertisements. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on 21 August, with Beco directed to submit its reply by 20 August.

HUL has sued Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, Beco’s parent company, alleging commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off.

At the heart of the campaign are claims based on laboratory testing. Beco says it detected Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Surf Excel, while LAS was detected in Vim. Its advertising then links the ingredients to potential skin irritation and allergic reactions.

HUL, however, is challenging that leap. Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the company, argued that Beco’s testing established the presence and concentration of the ingredients but did not establish that the finished products cause skin irritation or allergic reactions during normal use.

Sibal also argued that a relevant safety test was available but had not been conducted by Beco. The broader point from HUL is that the effect of an individual ingredient cannot automatically be treated as evidence of the effect of the finished formulation containing it.

The company has also defended LAS, saying it is a commonly used surfactant that helps cleaning products remove grease and oil. HUL argued that Beco singled out Vim and presented the ingredient as harmful without acknowledging its cleaning function.

The legal fight extends beyond the chemistry. HUL has objected to Beco’s use of its registered brand taglines, including Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain”, while referring to the rival products in the campaign.

HUL’s position is that competitors are free to advertise their own products and make comparisons, but should not cross the line into portraying a rival’s products as inherently bad.

The company has also alleged that Beco launched the campaign on the night of 14 August, ahead of its Independence Day sale, when the court was unavailable because of the holiday. HUL said the campaign had already clocked millions of views and appeared on outdoor hoardings across several cities, including Delhi.

For now, however, the court has stopped short of pressing pause on the campaign. Beco will get its opportunity to respond before the court decides whether HUL’s requested interim injunction should be granted.

The case could ultimately turn on where the line is drawn between comparative advertising and commercial disparagement making this less a battle over bubbles and more a test of how far brands can go when taking aim at a competitor’s products.