Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi | Decided: 10 September 2026 CS(COMM) No. 904 of 2026 Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.J. Bhambhani

Background

Hindustan Unilever Limited, the plaintiff, is a well-known consumer goods company and the proprietor of the registered trade marks VIM and SURF EXCEL in respect of dishwash and laundry detergent products respectively. The defendant, Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, markets competing cleaning products under the brand name BECO, including BECO Natural Laundry Liquid (Top Load) and BECO Natural Dishwash Liquid.

On 14 August 2026 the defendant launched an advertising campaign under the name and style “War on What’s Hidden,” bearing the hashtag #WarOnWhatsHidden, across multiple channels including YouTube, Instagram, social media platforms, physical hoardings, influencer collaborations and the defendant’s commercial website. The impugned campaign specifically identified and targeted the plaintiff’s products VIM and SURF EXCEL by name, prominently depicting their packaging and products.

The substantive message of the impugned campaign was that the plaintiff’s products contained two chemical ingredients Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) and Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) which studies show can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. The specific representations in the impugned campaign included the following statements: that studies show BIT and LAS can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions; that Surf Excel Matic Liquid (Top Load) contains 277 mg/kg of BIT and LAS upwards of 10 percent; that Surf Excel Matic Liquid (Front Load) contains 237.99 mg/kg of BIT; that Vim Dishwash Gel (Lemon) contains LAS upwards of 8 percent; that some forms of BIT are restricted for use in Europe; that the ingredients contained in the plaintiff’s products can cause skin irritation, redness, itching and eczema; that years of trust built in the plaintiff’s products may be based on what the consumer never knew until now; and that consumers should switch to BECO which does not contain BIT and LAS and which is hypoallergenic, baby safe and pet safe. The campaign also used sarcasm and jest in video format to insinuate that while the plaintiff’s products do clean clothes and utensils to a shine, they also cause skin irritation free of cost. Simultaneously, adjacent panels in the impugned campaign exhorted viewers to SWITCH TO BECO and provided links to the defendant’s marketplace.

The campaign also referenced the plaintiff’s well-known advertising expressions Power of 100 Lemons or 100 Nimbuon ki Shakti in relation to VIM and Daag Acche Hain in relation to SURF EXCEL. By the time the suit was instituted, individual reels forming part of the impugned campaign had already crossed 5.6 million views and the defendant’s YouTube advertisements had collectively crossed 1 million views, in addition to more than a hundred influencer posts carrying the campaign hashtag. The plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant’s media partners on 15 August 2026 but the defendant did not pause the campaign and instead issued a further post amplified by its Co-Founder and Director reiterating support for it.

On the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction, this Court had by judgment dated 25 August 2026 referred certain queries for consideration by a Larger Bench. Subsequently the defendant filed an affidavit before the Division Bench in FAO(OS)(COMM) No. 231 of 2026 confirming it holds GST registration in Delhi with a principal place of business at Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi and that hoardings carrying the campaign were put up in Delhi on 14 August 2026. The Division Bench accordingly gave prima facie finding that the suit was maintainable before this Court and remanded the matter to this bench for deciding the plaintiff’s interlocutory application, while keeping the reference open.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendant from continuing the impugned campaign on the grounds of targeted commercial disparagement, infringement of registered trademarks VIM and SURF EXCEL and associated trade dress, copyright infringement in artistic works referenced in the campaign, passing off and unfair competition.

Issues for Determination

1. What constitutes actionable commercial disparagement in law and whether disparagement without the element of falsity, misrepresentation or deception is actionable in its own right or whether only false and injurious comparative advertising that denigrates a competitor’s goods crosses the permissible limits of comparative advertising.
2. Whether the defence of truth operates in cases of commercial disparagement in the same manner as it operates in cases of defamation specifically whether the mere invocation of a truth defence by a defendant in a disparagement case prevents the grant of an interim injunction in the same way as the Bonnard principle operates in defamation cases.
3. Whether the truth or accuracy of individual isolated statements or representations in an advertising campaign is sufficient to establish the overall truthfulness of the campaign or whether the court must examine the overall message conveyed to an average consumer by the campaign viewed as a whole.
4. Whether the impugned campaign titled War on What’s Hidden prima facie crossed the permissible contours of comparative advertising and whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of commercial disparagement entitling it to an interim injunction restraining the defendant from continuing to run the impugned campaign.
5. Whether the balance of convenience lay in favour of granting an interim injunction and whether irreparable harm would be caused to the plaintiff if the campaign were allowed to continue.

Key Holdings of the Court

1. Court held that actionable commercial disparagement in law requires the elements of falsity and injury to be conjunctively present. Disparagement, properly understood, means a false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another’s property, product or business. A mere derogatory comparison, without more, cannot be equated with disparagement that is actionable in law. The Court expressly held that disparagement without anything more without falsity or misrepresentation or deception is not actionable as a legal wrong. Since a certain amount of adverse comparison is inherent in any comparative advertisement, the mere fact that an advertisement places a competitor’s product in an unfavourable light does not constitute an actionable wrong. What is material is whether the impugned representation is false or misleading or deceptive.
2. Court held that the defence of truth does not operate in cases of commercial disparagement in the same manner as the Bonnard principle operates in cases of defamation. In a defamation case, to obtain a pre-trial injunction the plaintiff must show the prima facie falsity of the defendant’s plea of justification by truth, failing which no injunction is ordinarily granted. In a commercial disparagement case, the balance is reversed to resist a pre-trial injunction the defendant must show the prima facie credibility of its plea of justification by truth and only if the court is prima facie satisfied that there is a tenable basis to the defence of truth will the court decline to injunct the defendant. The balance of convenience in cases of commercial disparagement lies in favour of the plaintiff, not the defendant. The distinction rests on the fact that a defendant in a disparagement case can be directed to employ other means of lawful comparative advertising, while a defendant in a defamation case may have no such alternative.
3. Court held that the element of truth as a defence to commercial disparagement cannot be determined by isolating particular elements of an advertisement and assessing each in isolation. A word, phrase, statement, picture, illustration or artwork cannot be segregated from the advertisement and assessed divorced from the whole. The court must consider the overall message conveyed by the advertisement and the impact that such message would have on the average consumer. Accordingly, a particular element of an advertisement may, when viewed in isolation, be accurate or truthful, but when juxtaposed with its other elements the advertisement viewed as a whole may convey a false and/or misleading and/or deceptive message to an average consumer. The court adopted the principle from the Division Bench judgment in Reckitt Benckiser India v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. that while a statement regarding comparative features of a product may be true, the overall commercial advertisement may nonetheless be grossly misleading.
4. On the application of these principles to the impugned campaign, the Court held that even if BIT and LAS can, taken on a standalone and isolated basis, cause skin irritation in a particular user and even if the plaintiff’s products contain some proportion of these ingredients, the defendant in the impugned campaign did not use these statements on a standalone or isolated basis. The defendant juxtaposed these statements with prominent visual depictions of the plaintiff’s products, statements that the ingredients can cause skin irritation, redness, itching and eczema, statements that years of trust may have been built on what the consumer never knew and simultaneous exhortations to switch to BECO. The unmistakable overall message that an average consumer would receive was that, since the plaintiff’s products contain BIT and LAS, using them would cause skin irritation. An average consumer would neither bother nor have the expertise to analyse or deconstruct this narrative and would not undertake a critical scientific analysis of whether the statements are true when the products are used in the ordinary and recommended way. The added narrative that the years of trust built in the plaintiff’s products may be based on what the consumer never knew until now would most likely shake the consumer’s confidence in those products. The Court found that the impugned campaign prima facie crossed the permissible contours of comparative advertising.
5. Court found that the defendant had failed to show that what was stated in the impugned campaign was prima facie true or that the relevant and material portions did not amount to misrepresentation or that they were not deceptive or misleading. Noting that the court could not at the interim stage examine, analyse or draw inferences from the lab reports and other scientific material cited by the parties since that exercise could only be conducted once expert evidence was led at trial, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff and that irreparable harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiff if the defendant were not restrained.
6. Court directed the defendant to forthwith pull down, remove and recall all advertisements forming part of the impugned campaign in any form, format or medium containing the offending statements referred to in the judgment, within one week from the date of the order and to file an affidavit of compliance within one week thereafter. The Court expressly clarified that the restraint order was limited only to the impugned campaign and was not intended to bar the defendant from carrying out comparative advertising in relation to the plaintiff’s products otherwise, including by promoting the defendant’s own products and making claims concerning their qualities in ways that do not denigrate the plaintiff’s products.

Statutory Provisions Involved

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, under which commercial speech and advertising are protected as constitutional rights. The Court applied this provision in the context of the settled line of authority beginning with the Supreme Court’s verdict in Tata Press Ltd. v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., which established that advertising as commercial speech is protected by Article 19(1)(a) and that public at large has a right to receive commercial speech. The Court balanced this constitutional protection against the limits imposed by the law of commercial disparagement, holding that the latter must be defined narrowly so as not to fall foul of the right to commercial free speech.

Sections 29(8) and 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 were referred to in the context of the settled law that their primary objective is to allow comparative advertising as long as the use of a competitor’s mark is honest and does not amount to infringement. The Court noted the well-established principle from these provisions that use of a competitor’s trade mark for the purposes of honest comparative identification of goods does not per se constitute infringement, while acknowledging that the plaintiff’s claims of trade mark infringement would require to be examined at trial.

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 151, were the procedural basis of the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction. The Court applied the tripartite test of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm in deciding to grant the injunction, while developing within that framework a nuanced analysis specific to the law of commercial disparagement.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court’s reasoning proceeded through three analytical stages establishing the correct legal definition of actionable disparagement, addressing the relationship between the truth defence and the grant of interim relief and then applying these principles to the specific facts of the impugned campaign.

On the definition of actionable disparagement, the Court drew on Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition to distinguish between disparagement in its wider sense any derogatory comparison and disparagement in its narrower and legally actionable sense a false and injurious statement. The Court found that the judicial precedents, beginning with the House of Lords decision in White v. Mellin and continued through the unbroken line of Indian cases including Colgate Palmolive v. HUL and Dabur India v. Colortek, consistently maintained this distinction. Since some degree of adverse comparison is inherent in all comparative advertising, the law cannot treat every unflattering comparison as actionable. To do so would stifle legitimate commercial speech protected under Article 19(1)(a). The Court therefore formulated the principle that comparative advertising amounts to disparagement in law only if it contains the ingredients of falsity and/or misrepresentation and/or deception coupled with injury to the competitor’s intellectual property or reputation.

On the truth defence, the Court drew a principled distinction between defamation and commercial disparagement cases based on the position of the balance of convenience. In defamation, where the subject matter of the publication is fixed a defendant who comments on a given subject cannot be directed to comment on a different subject the balance of convenience lies with the defendant and the Bonnard principle accordingly prevents a pre-trial injunction where truth is pleaded. In commercial disparagement, a defendant who is restrained from making a false or misleading claim about a competitor’s product retains the ability to advertise and promote its own products through other lawful means. The restraint is therefore not absolute but merely redirective. The balance of convenience accordingly lies with the plaintiff in disparagement cases and a defendant must do more than merely invoke truth as a shield it must show prima facie credibility in that defence.

The Court further qualified the truth defence by insisting on holistic assessment. Individual factual assertions within an advertisement cannot be isolated and assessed separately. The Court cited the Reckitt Benckiser Division Bench and the Bombay High Court’s decision in HUL v. USV to support the principle that even where the underlying data may be accurate, the inference or conclusion that the advertisement invites the consumer to draw and the overall message it communicates must itself be non-misleading and non-deceptive.

Applying this framework to the impugned campaign, the Court found that while the defendant’s ingredients-level assertions that the plaintiff’s products contain BIT and LAS and that these substances can cause skin irritation were disputed by the parties at the factual level and could not be finally determined at the interim stage, the overall message of the campaign as viewed by an average consumer crossed the line from permissible comparative advertising to actionable disparagement. The visual juxtaposition of the plaintiff’s branded products with health alarm messaging, the sequential narrative building from ingredient disclosure to skin harm to consumer redirection toward BECO and the accompanying commercial motive visible in the Switch to BECO exhortation together created an unmistakable and misleading overall message that the plaintiff’s products, when used in the ordinary way, would cause skin irritation to consumers. This was a product-level message of harm that was not supported by the ingredient-level truthfulness of the individual statements taken in isolation.

Doctrinal Significance

The Hindustan Unilever v. Kwick Living judgment makes three important doctrinal contributions to Indian trade mark and advertising law, specifically in the area of commercial disparagement and comparative advertising.

Its most significant contribution is the articulation of a precise and constitutionally grounded definition of actionable commercial disparagement. By expressly holding that disparagement without falsity, misrepresentation or deception is not actionable in law, the Court resolves a definitional imprecision that had allowed the expression to be used loosely to describe any unflattering comparative advertising. The Court’s formulation that comparative advertising amounts to disparagement in law only if it contains falsity and/or misrepresentation and/or deception coupled with injury to the competitor’s reputation provides a workable and principled standard that respects the constitutional protection of commercial speech under Article 19(1)(a) while protecting competitors from genuinely false and injurious advertising.

The second contribution is the articulation and justification of the asymmetric treatment of the truth defence as between defamation and commercial disparagement at the interim stage. The Court’s reasoning that in defamation the balance of convenience favours the defendant because no alternative subject matter exists, while in commercial disparagement the balance favours the plaintiff because the defendant retains the ability to promote its goods through other lawful means provides a principled doctrinal basis for what had previously been stated largely as a matter of conclusion in earlier decisions. This reasoning resolves the tension between the Bonnard principle on defamation and the approach of Delhi High Court Division Benches in comparative advertising cases.

The third contribution is the clear and authoritative statement that the truth defence in commercial disparagement cases must be assessed holistically against the overall message conveyed to an average consumer and not against individual isolated elements of an advertisement. This principle that accurate ingredient-level facts may nonetheless combine to create a false and misleading product-level message provides practically important guidance for future cases involving science-based or ingredient-based comparative advertising, which is likely to be an increasingly common category of commercial disparagement disputes as consumer awareness of product composition increases.

Articles Case Laws Copyright Article Landmark Judgements on Copyrights Landmark Judgements on Patents Landmark Judgements on Trademarks Patent Article Recent Judgements on Patents Recent Judgements on Trademarks Trademark Article