CASE NAME: Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
CASE NUMBER: CS(COMM) 904/2026; I.A. 22515/2026
COURT: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
DATE: 10 September 2026
QUORUM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. J. Bhambhani
FACTS
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) had made an application for interim injunction in respect of the advertisement campaign “War on What’s Hidden” of Kwick Living (I) Private Limited. This campaign pertained to the HUL products called Vim and Surf Excel containing “Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) and Benzisothiazolinone (BIT)” which “can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions.” The campaign had showcased the products of HUL and urged the consumers to switch over to “BEFO,” the competing products of the defendant company. HUL claimed that the campaign had created false or misleading impressions about its products which amounted to commercial disparagement, trademark and trade dress infringement, copyright infringement, passing off and unfair competition. The campaign had been shared via social media, YouTube, the website of the defendant, influencers, and through billboards. There was also a preliminary objection in respect of territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. It was thereafter established that it was GST-registered and had a principal place of business in Delhi, and that the advertising boards were exhibited in Delhi. It was thus established that the suit was maintainable in Delhi prima facie and the case was referred for determination of HUL’s prayer for interim injunction.
ISSUES
- Whether the impugned “War on What’s Hidden” campaign amounted to actionable commercial disparagement of HUL’s products, or was merely permissible comparative advertising.
- Whether the defendant could rely upon the defence of truth when seeking to oppose an interim injunction.
- Whether the overall message of the advertisement was false, misleading or deceptive when viewed from the perspective of an average consumer, even if individual statements regarding LAS and BIT were factually correct.
- Whether HUL satisfied the requirements for grant of an interim injunction; prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – empowers the court to grant temporary/interim injunctions.
- Section 151, CPC – inherent powers of the court, under which the application was also filed.
- Article 19(1)(a), Constitution of India – protects freedom of speech and expression, including commercial speech, subject to lawful restrictions.
- Sections 29(8) and 30(1), Trade Marks Act, 1999 – relevant to the use of a competitor’s trademark in advertising and the permissibility of honest comparative advertising. The judgment recognised that comparative advertising is permissible but cannot become false, misleading or deceptive.
- Law relating to commercial disparagement/malicious falsehood – a merely unfavourable comparison is not automatically actionable; the relevant question is whether the representation is false, misleading or deceptive and causes injury.
- Bonnard Principle
ARGUMENTS
APPELLANT:
In HUL’s view, the campaign was not a regular case of comparative advertising, but a clear attack on their products. In the opinion of HUL, it was evident that the accused had shown the trademarks, packages, and products of HUL, associating LAS and BIT with skin irritations, redness, itching, and eczema. It was followed by an advice for consumers to “SWITCH TO BECO” and, thus, clearly established that the true motive behind this campaign was marketing of the accused’s products.
Moreover, according to HUL, even if certain isolated facts about the presence of LAS and BIT were true, then still the overall impression that was created for the ordinary customer is that HUL’s products themselves were dangerous. HUL cited cases of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3094; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd., 206 (2014) DLT 329 (DB); and Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd., 2010 (167) DLT 278 (DB). to support the idea that advertisements should be looked upon as a whole and cannot rely upon technically correct facts to create misleading information.
HUL also contended that the ongoing campaign will cause irreparable damage to its goodwill, reputation, and credibility of the customers. HUL contended that the damage cannot be compensated in monetary terms because once apprehensions of the consumers are created about the safety of HUL’s products, mere withdrawal of advertisements will not erase those apprehensions from the minds of the consumers.
RESPONDENTS:
Kwick Living held the view that comparative advertising was not illegal. A person could recognize products of his competitors and use their trademarks to compare the products and state some true facts. The defendant said that all those actions which are against law are false statements or messages implying that the rival’s products are bad.
According to the defendant, all statements of the defendant were done after scientific and laboratory tests. The defendant said that its campaign only showed that the HUL products had specific amounts of LAS and BIT, and these things may irritate skin. It was stressed that the defendant did not say that the finished products of HUL were dangerous or poisonous.
The defendant also took the stand on truth defence and the Bonnard v. Perryman principle, which holds that courts need to be very careful in issuing an injunction order when there is an arguable defence for the truth of the impugned statements. It also added that if any statement is deemed to be objectionable, only the statement needs to be deleted but not the whole campaign.
ANALYSIS
The Court then made it clear that an unfavourable comparison does not automatically constitute disparagement. There is bound to be some element of comparative criticism in comparative advertising because in order to make comparative claims about its product, the advertiser makes negative claims regarding the competitor’s product. Yet, the threshold for an actionable claim would be the use of a false, misleading or deceptive representation that results in damage.
The Court further stated that in considering the total effect of an advertisement, one must bear in mind the perspective of an average consumer. Words, statements and scientific facts included in the advertisement cannot be looked at in isolation. While certain elements of an advertisement could actually be true, the combination of other elements may amount to a false or misleading message overall.
Using this doctrine, the Court held that the advertisement conveyed messages about LAS and BIT accompanied by pictures of HUL’s products and skin irritation, redness, itching, and eczema. Therefore, the overall message conveyed was that using the HUL products would lead to skin issues. The message “SWITCH TO BECO” and the claims that “BECO was hypoallergenic,” “baby safe,” and “pet safe” were used to illustrate the commercial nature of the advertising campaign.
Finally, the Court explained the distinction between defamation and commercial disparagement in respect of the defence of truth. For commercial disparagement cases, the defendant is required to establish the existence of prima facie credible and tenable justification of its defence of truth. The Court further held that the Bonnard doctrine, which applies to defamation cases, does not apply to commercial disparagement cases.
However, despite the scientific evidence and laboratory tests that were raised and that may eventually necessitate expert testimony in court, the Court ruled that the defendant had not proved at the preliminary stage that the entire message conveyed through the campaign was prima facie true and non-misleading.
JUDGMENT
The application for interim injunction filed by HUL was allowed by the Delhi High Court on the grounds that the impugned campaign prima facie went beyond the permissible limits of comparative advertising because of the misleading effect and derogatory tone towards the products of HUL.It was proved that a prima facie case existed, the balance of convenience was in favor of HUL and there would be irreparable injury to HUL if the impugned campaign is not restrained.
The court ordered Kwick Living to remove and recall within a period of one week all advertisements included in the impugned campaign containing the statements which are alleged to be offending. Notably, the grant of injunction was confined only to the impugned campaign and the defendant was not barred from carrying out other legal comparative advertising campaigns relating to the products of HUL.
CONCLUSION
This case makes it clear that comparative advertisements are legal and valid, but at no cost can they turn out to be false, misleading, or deceptive commercial disparagement. It is the Court that needs to look at the advertisement as a whole and see what message an ordinary customer gets from it, not pick individual phrases from it. Even if some facts are scientifically correct, they cannot be employed in creating a misleading impression of the competing company’s products. In this particular case, the Court ruled that “War on What’s Hidden” crossed this line.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: KHWAISH SACHDEVA
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited
