Delhi High Court Grants Ad-Interim Relief to HUL, Says Remarks That Are Derogatory And Defamatory In Ghadi Ads Targeting Surf Excel Cannot Be Permitted
The Delhi High Court has granted ad-interim relief to Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) by directing RSPL Ltd., the manufacturer of ‘Ghadi’ detergent, to remove three expressions from its advertisements that were prima facie found to be derogatory towards HUL’s ‘Surf Excel’.
A Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed, “It is settled law that the following principles would apply: (i) 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. (ii) There ought to be no derogatory remarks made against any competitor’s product. (iii) While puffing is permissible, defamation and tarnishment is not.”
The Court added, “The manner in which the advertisements themselves flow, from a lay persons point of view, clearly the reference that is being made to the competitor’s product by the Defendant could be taken to be ‘Surf Excel’ i.e. product of the Plaintiff. Though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory would not be permissible and therefore, as an ad-interim arrangement, this Court is prima facie inclined to direct the Defendant to remove the following phrases… which are clearly derogatory and make negative innuendos qua the Plaintiff’s ‘Surf Excel’ product.”
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for the Plaintiff, while Senior Advocate C.M. Lall represented the Defendant.
Brief Facts
The Plaintiff, Hindustan Unilever Ltd., filed a suit seeking injunction against four advertisements aired by RSPL Ltd. for its detergent brand ‘Ghadi’. It was alleged that these commercials were designed to disparage HUL’s well-known detergent ‘Surf Excel’ by using similar packaging, slogans, and suggestive messaging.
The Plaintiff contended that the commercials featured a blue packet with the term “XL Blue,” referenced its “Daag Acche Hain” campaign in disguised form, and used statements like “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate” and “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai”, aiming to cast negative innuendos on Surf Excel.
The Defendant submitted that “XL Blue” is a third-party registered trademark and that colour schemes such as blue are common in the industry. It denied any reference to the Plaintiff’s product and contended that the phrases were within the limits of comparative advertising and puffery.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court considered the visual and narrative flow of the impugned advertisements and found that the structure and phrases used therein were clearly designed to draw the consumer’s attention to the Plaintiff’s product.
The Court noted that advertisers are free to highlight their own strengths but cannot make derogatory or defamatory comments about competitors.
The Bench reiterated the settled legal position, “It is settled law that the following principles would apply: (i) 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. (ii) There ought to be no derogatory remarks made against any competitor’s product. (iii) While puffing is permissible, defamation and tarnishment is not.”
The Court observed, “…the manner in which the advertisements themselves flow, from a lay persons point of view, clearly the reference that is being made to the competitor’s product by the Defendant could be taken to be ‘Surf Excel’ i.e. product of the Plaintiff.”
The Bench noted that the language used and presentation style crossed the line between acceptable comparison and unlawful disparagement. The Court found that the following three lines used in the advertisements were prima facie derogatory:
- “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate”
- “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai”
- “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai”
The Court held, “Under such circumstances, though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible and therefore, as an ad-interim arrangement, this Court is prima facie inclined to direct the Defendant to remove the following phrases which are clearly derogatory and make negative innuendos qua the Plaintiff’s ‘Surf Excel’ product, from the impugned advertisements.”
Accordingly, the Court directed RSPL to remove the three lines from the four impugned commercials being broadcast and circulated, and permitted broadcast thereafter. The Court directed that the modified advertisements be aired only after the removal of the impugned phrases by 24 June 2025.
Cause Title: Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. RSPL Ltd. (CS(COMM) 629/2025)
Appearance:
Plaintiff: Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi, Saikrishna Rajagopal; Advocates Vivek Ayyagari, Shamit Nair, K. Sreejana, Mayank Pandey, Ansh Gautam
Defendant: Senior Advocate C.M. Lall; Advocate Nancy Roy, Nayan Bansal, Arjun Bhasin, Madhur Sharma
