In the case of Hindustan Unilever Limited v. RSPL Limited, underlining the fine line between comparative advertising and defamation, the Delhi High Court passed an interim order involving an aggressive advertising campaign that allegedly disparaged the iconic detergent brand Surf Excel. The Court's observations reiterate the evolving boundaries of advertising ethics, trademark protection, and brand personality under Indian IP jurisprudence.
Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), one of India's largest FMCG companies, approached the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction against RSPL Ltd., the manufacturer of Ghadi detergent. The grievance stemmed from a series of four television and digital commercials released by Ghadi in June 2025 for its 'Ghadi' detergent powder. HUL alleged that these ads indirectly targeted its Surf Excel product and deployed derogatory language and misleading inferences that tarnished its brand reputation.
Key identifiers used in Ghadi's ads, such as a strikingly similar blue packaging, the term "XL Blue", and slogans like "Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai", were argued to mirror HUL's famous "Daag Acche Hai" campaign, creating an unfair association with Surf Excel. Furthermore, expressions like "Na Na, yeh dhoka hai" (This is a fraud) and "Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi paatey" (Makes tall claims but cannot wash) were deemed by the plaintiff as defamatory.
At the core of this dispute lies the tension between permissible comparative advertising and impermissible brand disparagement. While Indian trademark law allows puffery and fair comparisons under Section 30(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, it also offers protection against unfair competition and tarnishment under Section 29(8), which prohibits advertising that takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to a registered trademark's distinctive character or repute.
The Court restated this balance by highlighting three key principles:
- It is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product as long as it is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor's product.
- That there are no derogatory remarks made against any competitor's product.
- While puffing is permissible, defamation and tarnishing are not.
After reviewing the advertisements and assessing the content, the Court held that a prima facie case of disparagement and derogation was made out. Importantly, the Court acknowledged that even implicit references, like mimicking packaging or adopting slogans suggestive of another brand, can constitute IP and reputational harm if they create consumer confusion or degrade brand goodwill.
Hence, the Court ordered RSPL Ltd. to remove specific phrases from the impugned ads, including "Na Na, yeh dhoka hai", "Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi paate" and "Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai". The Court held that the advertisements were not only suggestive of HUL's Surf Excel product but also derogatory and capable of misleading the average consumer into observing inferiority in the plaintiff's product, which amounts to unfair trade practice.
The case highlights the increasing vigilance of the Courts in protecting the intangible commercial value of brands. It also serves as a cautionary tale for marketers and advertisers as comparative advertising is a potent tool, but when used recklessly, it can expose companies to legal action for IP infringement and defamation.
Some key takeaways from the case include the recognition that trademark identity goes beyond just names; it encompasses trade dress, colour schemes, taglines, and overall marketing themes, which collectively establish a brand's distinctiveness and are legally protectable. Additionally, while businesses enjoy commercial speech rights, this freedom has clear boundaries and cannot be used as a shield for campaigns that cross into defamatory or disparaging territory. The case also illustrates that courts are willing to intervene swiftly to prevent reputational harm and provide timely relief in instances of misleading or derogatory advertising.
As brands compete more aggressively in saturated markets, this decision from the Delhi High Court reinforces the principle that advertising must be responsible, ethical, and compliant with IP laws. With growing judicial recognition of non-traditional brand assets and an increasingly IP-aware consumer base, companies must tread carefully in their comparative narratives, and creativity must not come at the cost of credibility.
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.