1 hr ago
Delhi High Court Restrains BECO Ads Targeting HUL Products
BECO is a company that sells home-care products.
It made advertisements comparing its products with HUL products such as Vim and Surf Excel.
The advertisements said some ingredients in HUL products could cause skin irritation or allergies.
HUL disagreed and said the ads unfairly described its products as harmful.
HUL asked the Delhi High Court to stop the campaign.
A judge ordered BECO to stop running the advertisements.
BECO had also argued that the case belonged in Mumbai, but the court rejected that argument.
The court will consider the main dispute about the advertisements separately.
The Delhi High Court restrained BECO from running its '#WarOnWhatsHidden' advertising campaign.
The campaign linked Hindustan Unilever Limited's Vim and Surf Excel products to skin irritation and allergies.
BECO highlighted benzisothiazolinone and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate while promoting products it said did not contain them.
HUL argued that describing a competitor's products as physically harmful amounted to unlawful defamation.
The court previously rejected BECO's objection that the case should be heard in Mumbai rather than Delhi.
- Who
- Hindustan Unilever Limited and home-care startup BECO are involved in the dispute.
- What
- The Delhi High Court restrained BECO from running advertisements that allegedly portrayed HUL products as harmful.
- Where
- The case is being heard in the Delhi High Court, although both companies' head offices are in Mumbai.
- When
- The single-judge bench issued the restraint in an oral order on Thursday; a division bench rejected BECO's jurisdiction objection on 2 September.
- Why
- HUL alleged that BECO's comparative advertising crossed legal limits by linking its products to skin irritation and allergies.
Hindustan Unilever Limited
BECO
Comparative advertising
Hindustan Unilever Limited
HUL said companies may promote their own products, but portraying a competitor's goods as physically harmful crosses into unlawful defamation.
BECO
BECO's campaign compared its products with HUL products and highlighted ingredients it said were absent from its own products.
Case location
Hindustan Unilever Limited
The case proceeded in Delhi after the court found a connection to the capital, including BECO's Delhi hoardings and GST registration.
BECO
BECO argued that the case should be heard in Mumbai because both companies' head offices are registered there and the hoarding was put up in Mumbai.
Key facts
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Judge
- Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
- Campaign
- #WarOnWhatsHidden
- Products named
- HUL's Vim and Surf Excel
- Ingredients highlighted
- Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS)
- BECO founding
- Founded in 2019 by Aditya Ruia, Akshay Varma, and Anuj Ruia
- Jurisdiction ruling
- A division bench rejected BECO's objection to the case being heard in Delhi on 2 September
Quotes
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhami
Delhi High Court single-judge bench judge who issued the oral order
“I am injunctioning your ad campaign”
livemint.com
Sources
Related news
HUL Challenges Beco Campaign Targeting Surf Excel and Vim
Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction in HUL-Beco Ad Dispute
Urban Company Sues Kent RO Over Native Purifier Ads
Vimal Elaichi Makers Challenge Maharashtra FDA Notices To Three Actors
Bengaluru Court Restrains Defamatory Content About Yash Film Toxic
Enviro Infra Subsidiary Wins ₹224.19 Crore Wind EPC Project
Shaque Trailer Sparks Remake Questions and Jennifer Winget Backlash
Manoj Jarange Confirms Mumbai March, Awaits September 12 Mobilisation
India’s Bond Tokenization Summit Examines Blockchain’s Financial Future
Digital Bond Summit Highlights Liquidity, Custody and Cybersecurity Risks
