Introduction
In today's competitive marketing environment, brands are constantly looking for ways to stand out and capture consumer attention. One strategy that has gained significant traction in recent years is the use ofcomparative advertising, where companies directly or indirectly highlight their product's superiority over their competitors. According to the ASCI 2024 Annual Complaints Report, a staggering 81% of all ad violations in the fiscal year 2023–24 were due to misleading claims, with 85% of these objectionable ads originating from digital platforms. The personal care sector, which includes skincare and sunscreen products, accounted for 13% of the total violations, underscoring the prevalence of such issues in this category.1This growing trend of misleading or disparaging advertisement has sparked legal battles that bring forth questions about fairness, ethical marketing, and brand rivalry. One such battle unfolded betweenHonasa Consumer LimitedandHindustan Unilever Limited (HUL)2over a controversial sunscreen advertisement that sparked a clash of legal and commercial interests.
The Sunscreen Showdown: Honasa vs. HUL
The conflict began when Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) launched a television and digital advertisement for its Lakmé Sun Expert SPF 50 sunscreen. The commercial prominently showcased the superior efficacy of its sunscreen, which purportedly offered SPF 50 protection. However, it also made implicit claims about its competitors, including Honasa Consumer Limited (Honasa), the parent company of Mamaearth and The Derma Co. The advertisement depicted a similar product, which Honasa claimed was unfairly targeted, leading consumers to believe that it offered inferior protection.
The advertisement featured visuals of a sunscreen product in similar packaging, accompanied by claims such as "online bestseller" and "SPF 50", subtly hinting that these claims applied to the rival product, The Derma Co's 1% Hyaluronic Sunscreen Aqua Gel. According to Honasa, the comparison was not only misleading but also disparaging because it suggested that The Derma Co's sunscreen was ineffective or failed to deliver what it promised.
In particular, Honasa took issue with the "best-seller" label used in the advertisement, which they argued was directly referencing their The Derma Co product. The advertisement did not mention the competitor's name, but it was clear enough for viewers to make the connection. This, they claimed, harmed their product's reputation and misled consumers into believing that their sunscreen was less effective. This prompted Honasa to file a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, seeking an injunction and requesting the advertisement to be modified or withdrawn.
HUL's Defence: The Battle in the Courtroom
The case was brought before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which initially found that the advertisement could be construed as disparaging, given the indirect reference to The Derma Co's product. HUL, however, argued that the advertisement was a legitimate comparative advertisement, intended to highlight the efficacy of their sunscreen rather than disparage any competitor.
In its defence, HUL claimed that the advertisement did not directly name The Derma Co's product and that the use of terms like "best-seller" was simply a marketing tactic to appeal to a broader audience. They also argued that the commercial adhered to the principles of fair competition in advertising, focusing on the benefits of their product rather than disparaging the competition.
The brand also pointed out that many consumers of Lakmé Sun Expert SPF 50 were purchasing the product for its perceived superiority, and comparative advertisements were a common industry practice. Additionally, HUL argued that such advertisement did not cause any actual harm to the sales or reputation of The Derma Co's sunscreen, thereby challenging the necessity of a legal remedy.
Despite these arguments, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruled that the advertisement crossed a line, as it indirectly referred to Honasa's product in a way that could mislead and confuse consumers. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court emphasized that competitive advertising should not undermine the reputation of competitors by presenting misleading claims, even if the competitor's name was not directly mentioned.
The Resolution: A Modified Advertisement
In response to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's observations, HUL made a significant concession. In a hearing before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, HUL agreed to modify the advertisement by:
- Removing any reference to "best-seller" and replacing it with "some sellers."
- Refraining from using direct or implied references to The Derma Co or its products in a manner that could be perceived as disparaging.
- Modifying the product's visual to avoid a similarity in packaging to The Derma Co's sunscreen.
The Hon'ble Delhi High Court accepted these modifications and issued an order allowing the ad to resume circulation, but only in its revised form.
Author's Comment
The whole debate around the "best-seller" tag brings to mind the song "I Am the Best", full of confidence, energy, and bold claims. While that kind of tone works well in music, it doesn't always translate the same way in advertising.
In this case, even though HUL didn't name any competitor directly, the hints were strong enough to make viewers draw a connection. And that's what Honasa took issue with not just the comparison, but the way it quietly suggested that their product wasn't good enough.
That's where things can get tricky. When every brand starts saying "I'm the best" while indirectly pulling others down, it doesn't help consumers, it only creates confusion. There's a fine line between promoting your strengths and misrepresenting someone else's. At the end of the day, it's not just about who says they're the best, but how they say it. Because when everyone is singing the same tune, what really matters is who consumers trust — not who shouts the loudest.
Conclusion
This legal dispute is not just a battle between two brands but a reminder that in the competitive world of FMCG advertising, the stakes are higher than ever. While comparative advertising remains a legitimate tool for showcasing product superiority, the Honasa vs. HUL case highlights the dangers of crossing ethical boundaries. Brands must remember that in the court of public opinion, their credibility and reputation matter just as much as their advertising claims.
This case also underscores the importance of fair play in marketing and consumer trust. Disparaging advertisements may grab attention temporarily, but the long-term repercussions on consumer loyalty and brand equity can be far more damaging. Therefore, brands need to strike a delicate balance between promoting their products and maintaining a positive relationship with consumers and competitors alike.
Footnotes
1 https://www.ascionline.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Annual-Complaints-Report-2023-24.pdf
2 Honasa Consumer Limited vs Hindustan Unilever Limited, CS(COMM) 342/2025 with I.A. 9696/2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
