2 weeks ago
HUL Challenges Beco Campaign Targeting Surf Excel and Vim
Hindustan Unilever makes products such as Surf Excel and Vim.
Beco, another home-care company, made advertisements comparing its products with those brands.
Beco said some chemicals found in the HUL products could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions.
HUL says Beco did not do enough testing to prove that the finished products cause those effects.
HUL also says the advertisements make its products look harmful and use parts of its registered slogans.
Beco says its claims were checked by independent accredited laboratories and supported by scientific research.
HUL asked the Delhi High Court to stop the campaign temporarily.
The court has asked Beco to respond but has not stopped the advertisements yet.
Hindustan Unilever sued Kwick Living India, which owns Beco, over comparative advertisements featuring Surf Excel and Vim.
HUL alleges commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off, and seeks an interim injunction.
Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign compared its laundry and dishwashing products with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.
The campaign claimed Surf Excel contained BIT and LAS, while Vim contained LAS, which could cause skin irritation or allergic reactions.
The Delhi High Court issued notice without immediately stopping the advertisements; the case is listed for further hearing on August 21.
- Who
- Hindustan Unilever and Kwick Living India, owner of the Beco brand.
- What
- A legal dispute over Beco’s comparative advertising campaign targeting HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim products.
- Where
- The Delhi High Court; the campaign appeared on social media, videos, influencer promotions and outdoor hoardings.
- When
- The campaign was launched the week before HUL approached the court; the matter is scheduled for further hearing on August 21.
- Why
- HUL says the campaign makes unsupported claims that its products are harmful, encourages consumers to switch to Beco, and improperly uses HUL taglines.
HUL’s Position
Beco’s Position
Whether the safety claims are proven
HUL’s Position
HUL argues that Beco tested only for the presence of chemicals and did not perform the prescribed safety test on the finished formulations, so the tests did not prove that the products cause skin irritation or allergic reactions.
Beco’s Position
Beco cofounder Aditya Ruia says the claims were substantiated before publication through independent laboratories accredited by the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories and supported by scientific literature and references from the World Health Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the European Chemicals Agency.
Meaning of the chemical findings
HUL’s Position
HUL says Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate is commonly used in dishwashing liquids to help remove grease and oil, and that its presence alone does not establish that a product causes skin irritation.
Beco’s Position
Beco’s campaign stated that chemicals identified in Surf Excel and Vim could cause skin irritation and allergic reactions and presented Beco products as a more natural alternative.
Campaign and commercial conduct
HUL’s Position
HUL says the advertisements portray Surf Excel and Vim as harmful, encourage consumers to switch brands, and improperly use registered taglines including “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and “Daag Achhe Hain.” HUL also alleged the campaign was released ahead of a sale while the company would have difficulty approaching court on a national holiday.
Beco’s Position
Beco says its campaign was a comparative product-safety initiative and that outdoor, digital and other partners faced pressure to remove the advertisements from a much larger advertiser. It urged challenges to be made through proper channels.
Key facts
- Plaintiff
- Hindustan Unilever
- Defendant
- Kwick Living India, which owns Beco
- Campaign
- Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign
- Products compared
- Beco laundry and dishwashing products versus Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel
- Chemicals cited
- Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS)
- HUL’s legal claims
- Commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off
- Court action
- The Delhi High Court issued notice and did not immediately restrain the advertisements
- Next listed hearing
- August 21
Quotes
Aditya Ruia
Cofounder of Beco, a Mumbai‑based sustainable home‑care brand
“Every claim on these hoardings was substantiated before they went live. These products were tested by independent, NABL‑accredited laboratories. The effects we describe are supported by scientific literature and references from organisations including the WHO, the OECD, and the European Chemicals Agency.”
inc42.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction in HUL-Beco Ad Dispute
Urban Company Sues Kent RO Over Native Purifier Ads
Delhi High Court Stays FSSAI Order on Dabur 100% Claims
Delhi High Court stays FSSAI ban on Dabur's '100%' claims
Delhi High Court Stays FSSAI Ban on Dabur '100%' Claims
