Archive · 21 Aug 2026
Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction in HUL-Beco Ad Dispute
Hindustan Unilever is suing Beco over advertisements about some of its cleaning products.
Beco’s ads mention chemicals called BIT and LAS in Surf Excel and Vim.
The ads say these chemicals can cause skin irritation and allergies.
Beco says its own products are made without those ingredients.
HUL brought the case to the Delhi High Court.
The court is unsure whether Delhi is the correct place to hear the case.
Beco says simply being able to see an online ad in Delhi may not be enough.
The court will hear more arguments on Monday.
The Delhi High Court questioned whether it has territorial jurisdiction over HUL’s advertising lawsuit against Beco.
HUL alleges Beco’s advertisements make claims about chemicals in Surf Excel and Vim products.
Beco’s campaign says the products contain BIT and LAS, which can cause skin irritation and allergies.
Beco argued that HUL’s business and the physical advertisements are located in Mumbai, not Delhi.
The court will hear final arguments on the jurisdiction issue on Monday.
- Who
- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. and home-care brand Beco; Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani is hearing the matter.
- What
- The Delhi High Court is considering whether it has territorial jurisdiction over HUL’s plea concerning Beco’s advertising campaign.
- When
- The jurisdiction arguments took place on Friday, with final arguments scheduled for Monday.
- Where
- The matter is before the Delhi High Court; HUL’s principal place of business and the identified physical advertisement are in Mumbai, according to Beco’s counsel.
- Why
- HUL challenges Beco’s advertisements alleging that Surf Excel and Vim contain chemicals that can cause skin irritation and allergies.
Hindustan Unilever’s Position
Beco’s Position
Appropriate court for the dispute
Hindustan Unilever’s Position
HUL has brought its plea before the Delhi High Court over Beco’s advertising campaign.
Beco’s Position
Beco argues that HUL’s principal place of business and the identified physical advertisement are in Mumbai, and suggested that Delhi may lack territorial jurisdiction.
Online advertising and Delhi jurisdiction
Hindustan Unilever’s Position
HUL is seeking relief in Delhi in connection with Beco’s online and other advertising activity.
Beco’s Position
Beco’s counsel said the mere availability of its website or social media posts in Delhi is insufficient; HUL must show that Beco specifically targeted Delhi consumers.
Claims about product ingredients
Hindustan Unilever’s Position
HUL is challenging Beco’s advertisements concerning Surf Excel and Vim products.
Beco’s Position
Beco’s campaign states that the products contain BIT and LAS and presents Beco’s own products as being formulated without those ingredients.
- Applicant
- Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL)
- Respondent
- Beco, a home-care brand
- Campaign
- #WarOnWhatsHidden
- Products named
- HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim Dishwash Gel
- Ingredients cited
- Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS)
- Court issue
- Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction
- Next hearing
- Final arguments are scheduled for Monday