Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd., the plaintiff seeking an injunction against defendant, from disparaging the plaintiff’s product i.e. Surf Excel detergent, Pratibha Singh, J., stated that while telecasting commercials for its ‘Ghadi’ detergent powder, reference made by the defendant to the ‘competitor’s product’ in the advertisement, could be clearly taken to be plaintiff’s product ‘Surf Excel’. The Court found such advertisements to be derogatory and accordingly, directed the defendant to remove all the derogatory phrases from the advertisements and then telecast it.
Background
The plaintiff is one of the market leaders in the category of detergent, washing powder, etc. and has a turnover of approximately Rs.11,000 Crore per annum for the ‘Surf’ branded products. The ‘Surf’ products were sold by the plaintiff in various packaging, out of which, the prominent packaging was the blue package called ‘Surf Excel’. The said brand itself was launched in 1996 by the plaintiff and in 2004, the product of the plaintiff underwent a definitive transition and changed its branding to ‘Surf Excel Blue’.
The defendant was the manufacturer and seller of ‘Ghadi’ detergent and had launched a series of four advertisements for promoting the same, which allegedly targeted, ridiculed and made unsubstantiated derogatory claims about the plaintiff’s product ‘Surf Excel’.
The storyboards of the said advertisements showed detergent packet in light blue and dark blue packaging. Plaintiff’s advertisement used the expressions ‘Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai’, which clearly referred to the advertisement campaign of the Plaintiff under the slogan ‘Daag Acche Hai’. The said advertisement also used the terms ‘XL Blue’, ‘Na Na, yeh dhoka hai’ and ‘Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey’, which were evidently used in respect of the plaintiff’s product.
Hence, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking an injunction against defendant from disparaging the plaintiff’s product i.e. Surf Excel detergent.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court highlighted certain legal principles in terms of the telecasting an advertisement:
- That it is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product;
- There ought to be no derogatory remarks made against any competitor’s product; and
-
While puffing is permissible, defamation and tarnishing is not.
On applying these principles in the present case, the Court opined that the manner in which the impugned advertisements themselves flow, from a lay person’s point of view the reference made to the competitor’s product by the defendant could be easily taken to be ‘Surf Excel’.
The Court further stated that comparative advertising by itself could be healthy but remarks that were derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible. Therefore, the Court found defendant’s advertisements clearly disparaging the plaintiff’s ‘Surf Excel’ product.
Hence, the Court granted the interim injunction to the plaintiff and directed the defendant to carry out the proper amendments in the advertisements, prior to the further broadcasting.
[Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. RSPL Limited, CS (COMM) 629 of 2025, decided on 20-6-2025]
Order by- Justice Pratibha M. Singh
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Sandeep Sethi, Saikrishna Rajagopal, Senior Advocates; Vivek Ayyagari, Sulien George, Arjun Ghadhoke, Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates.
For the Respondents: C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate; Nancy Roy, Annanya Chug, Prashant, Advocates.
