Delhi High Court bars ads saying Hindustan Unilever’s Vim, Surf Excel cause skin irritation

The Delhi High Court recently directed a company to remove its advertisements that target products like Vim and Surf Excel owned by retail giant Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and observed that the “overall message” received by an average consumer watching the advertisement would be that, since HUL’s products contain certain chemicals, using them would cause skin irritation and other health problems.

The High Court held that the advertisements were not merely “comparative advertising” showcasing product superiority, but rather “denigrated” HUL’s products by showing them as allegedly scientifically verified as unsafe.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a copyright case filed by HUL against a company called Kwick Living.

“Clearly, an average consumer, or for that matter any non-expert, would neither bother nor have the expertise to analyse or deconstruct the narrative contained in the impugned campaign (advertisement) nor would they reason with themselves or undertake a critical, scientific analysis of whether the statements contained in the impugned campaign are true when the plaintiff’s products are used in the usual and ordinary way in daily life,” the September 10 order read.

The court further observed that “when viewed from this perspective, the added narrative in the impugned campaign, namely that the years of trust built in the HUL’s products may be based on what the consumer never knew until now, would most likely shake the consumer’s confidence in the said products”.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani observed that the ads would make an average customer believe that HUL’s products contained chemicals that would lead to skin problems.

HUL filed a case to stop a company from continuing the advertising campaign called “War on What’s Hidden” related to HUL products like Vim (dishwashing soap) and Surf Excel (washing powder). HUL contended that the advertisement was a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement, along with targeted commercial tarnishing of its products by falsely claiming that the products were “unsafe and capable of causing skin irritation or allergic reaction” in users.

‘Overall message’

Primarily, the high court explained that a statement that just shows a competitor’s product in a bad light is not legally wrong, and it has to be evaluated whether the material that was shown was false, misleading, or deceptive. Therefore, as per the court, highlighting the comparative disadvantage of a competitor’s product is the very nature of comparative advertising, and could not by itself be seen as tarnishing a product.

Story continues below this ad

The high court noted that while it may be true that the chemicals mentioned in the advertisement cause skin irritation and allergic reaction to a user, and that HUL’s products may contain some of those chemicals, the advertisement does not talk about only those chemicals, and gave the “overall message” to an average consumer that since HUL’s products contain certain chemicals, using them would cause skin irritation, including redness, itching, or even eczema.

The high court held that when seen “holistically” the overall result of the advertisements was not “mere comparative advertising” which portrayed the company’s products superior to HUL’s products, but the ads tarnished HUL’s products by claiming that the products were allegedly scientifically verified as unsafe.

According to the court, the advertisement was giving complex chemical names, proportions, and percentages of the harmful ingredients to make the viewer sure that HUL’s products were risky to use. Hence, the court directed the company to remove all the advertisements within one week.

Targeted and tarnished

Senior advocates Amit Sibal and Rajiv Nayar, along with advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal, appearing for HUL, argued that on August 14, 2026, the company launched a deliberate advertisement that targeted and tarnished HUL’s products Vim and Surf Excel, along with displaying particular packaging of HUL products and referring to their advertising expressions like “100 Nimbuon ki Shakti” and “Daag Acche Hain”.

Story continues below this ad

The counsel further submitted that the company was also falsely claiming that because of certain chemicals present in HUL’s products, using them caused or was capable of causing skin irritation, allergic reaction, and other physical harm, and the “unmistakable message” of the advertisement was that a consumer who continues to use HUL’s products was a fool.

The counsel contended that the advertisement was not in good faith or for consumer transparency because, had the company’s concerns been genuine, they would have also mentioned the ingredients used by other dishwashing and detergent brands in their cleaning products in the market generally, and would not have focused only on HUL’s products.

According to the counsel, the advertisement went beyond permitted limits of ‘comparative advertising’ and also made fun of HUL’s consumers in the advertisement, where it showed a woman who accepts skin irritation because it comes “free” with HUL’s product.

Senior advocate Chander M Lall, with advocates Shwetasree Majumder and Prithvi Singh representing the company, contended that the law on comparative advertising was well known: a trader may compare his goods with a rival’s named goods, may use the rival’s mark and packaging to the extent required to identify what is being compared and was allowed to say what was true.

Story continues below this ad

The counsel contended that the company’s BECO natural laundry liquid and natural dishwash liquid did not contain the chemicals present in HUL’s product and that since the company’s advertisement was showing the truth, the advertisement could not be stopped, merely because it was “unpalatable” to HUL.

The counsel argued that HUL’s products like Surf Excel and Persil had disclosures of chemicals that were shown in the advertisement on packs sold in the United States and the United Kingdom, where such disclosures are mandated by law, but no disclosure was done on the products in India because there was no legal requirement to do so in our country, and the company aimed to address this “regulatory vacuum” by showing the Indian consumers the information about the very same ingredients that HUL was “obliged to disclose” in other legally stricter countries.