The court directed Kwick Living (India) Pvt. Ltd., which owns Beco, to immediately pull down and recall the advertisements across all formats and media. It also restrained the company from publishing disparaging material about the two HUL brands.
“We welcome the Delhi High Court’s judgment, which reaffirms the trust and confidence that millions of Indian consumers have in our products over decades, including our brands Surf Excel and Vim,” HUL said.
The consumer-goods company said it formulated, manufactured, and safety-assessed its products in accordance with applicable regulations and rigorous global safety standards.
“Consumer trust is built on responsible advertising. Fair competition must be rooted in truthful communication and respect for intellectual property and the reputation of competing brands,” it added.
Campaign sparks brand battle
Launched on August 14, Beco’s campaign displayed and named Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel on billboards, videos, social-media posts, influencer promotions and a dedicated webpage.Beco alleged that independent laboratory tests had detected benzisothiazolinone (BIT), a preservative, and linear alkylbenzene sulfonate (LAS), a cleaning agent, in Surf Excel. It said Vim contained more than 8% LAS and cited published research associating the ingredients with skin irritation or allergic reactions.
Using lines such as “Years of trust. Built on what you never knew,” Beco urged consumers to scrutinise established cleaning products while presenting its own laundry and dishwashing liquids as alternatives free of the highlighted ingredients.
Comparison or disparagement?
HUL moved the High Court in August, alleging commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. It argued that detecting an ingredient did not establish that the finished product was harmful or unsafe when used as directed.The dispute centred on the boundary between permissible comparative advertising and an attack on a rival’s reputation. Companies may compare products and promote their advantages, but health or safety allegations against a named competitor require adequate substantiation.
Beco did not respond immediately.
Published on September 11, 2026