HUL moves Delhi HC against Beco’s ‘harmful chemicals’ ad campaign targeting Surf Excel, Vim

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has moved the Delhi High Court against home-care brand Beco over an advertising campaign claiming that HUl's Surf Excel and Vim contain chemicals capable of causing skin irritation and allergic reactions [Hindustan Unilever Vs Kwick Living]

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on Wednesday sought Beco’s response to HUL’s application seeking an interim injunction against the campaign. The matter will be heard again on Friday, August 21.

The Court did not pass any order immediately restraining the advertisements, stating that it wanted to hear Beco before deciding HUL’s interim application.

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

Beco recently launched the '#WarOnWhatsHidden' campaign through videos, social-media posts, influencers and outdoor hoardings. The campaign directly compares Beco’s laundry and dishwashing liquids with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.

Beco claimed that laboratory testing detected Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Surf Excel, and LAS in Vim. The advertisements state that the ingredients can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions.

Appearing for HUL, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that Beco had tested the products only to establish the presence and concentration of the ingredients. It had not tested whether the finished products caused skin irritation or allergic reactions when ordinarily used, he said.

“The ad is untrue and misleading and disparaging, all three,” Sibal submitted.

He said the prescribed safety test was available but had not been conducted by Beco. Merely relying on the possible effects of an ingredient in isolation could not establish that a finished formulation containing that ingredient will cause the same effects, he argued.

Sibal added that LAS is a commonly used surfactant which reduced surface tension and enabled cleaning products to remove grease and oil. It was used across the dishwashing market but Beco has singled out Vim and presented the ingredient as though it had no function other than causing irritation, the Court was told.

HUL also alleged that the advertisements mocked users of its products and suggested that the company was exploiting and misleading consumers.

HUL specifically objected to the use of its registered taglines, including Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain”, to identify the products being targeted.

“You can promote your product. You can even compare your product to other products. But you cannot cross the Lakshman Rekha of calling your competitor’s products bad,” Sibal argued.

HUL said Beco had launched the campaign on the night of August 14, ahead of its Independence Day sale, knowing that the company could not immediately approach the Court because of the holiday. It added that the coordinated campaign has already attracted millions of views and appeared on hoardings in several cities, including Delhi.

Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, appearing for Beco, sought time to place the company’s response and supporting material on record.

The Court directed Beco to provide its reply to HUL by August 20 and indicated that it would hear both parties before deciding the interim injunction application.

Sibal was briefed by advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sneha Jain and Vivek Ayyagari from Saikrishna & Associates.

Lall was briefed by advocate Shwetasree Majumdar from Fidus Law Chambers.