Introduction:

In a significant development in the realm of comparative advertising and trademark law, the Delhi High Court, through its vacation bench led by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, on June 24, 2025, passed an ad-interim order directing the removal of allegedly derogatory and disparaging content from advertisements issued by Ghadi detergent, a product marketed by RSPL Limited. The Court’s interim direction came in a commercial suit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), the manufacturer of Surf Excel, who alleged that RSPL’s advertisements directly targeted and defamed its flagship detergent brand through unsubstantiated negative messaging.

Arguments:

According to HUL, four television and digital commercials released by Ghadi detergent contained phrases and visuals intended to mock and belittle Surf Excel, violating the standards of fair and healthy comparative advertising. HUL contended that while comparative advertising is permissible in Indian law under the scope of commercial free speech, it cannot cross the threshold into defamation or disparagement, particularly when naming or alluding to a rival brand with derisive language. It submitted that phrases such as “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate,” “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai,” and “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai” were not only misleading but also conveyed false impressions that Surf Excel underperforms or cheats consumers. Additionally, HUL pointed out that these advertisements were choreographed and presented in a manner which, even without overt naming, unmistakably hinted at Surf Excel, making the denigration both deliberate and commercially damaging.

The plaintiff’s legal team, led by Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Saikrishna Rajagopal, supported by a team of counsel, emphasized that RSPL’s portrayal breached ethical advertising norms and undermined the fair market competition by using ridicule as a marketing tool. On the contrary, RSPL Limited, represented by Senior Advocate C.M. Lall and his team, argued that there was no exclusive right to the word “Excel” since HUL itself held a disclaimed trademark registration on that component. They maintained that the advertisements never named Surf Excel and that any association drawn was the viewer’s interpretation, not a direct infringement or targeted defamation.

Further, the defense contended that several detergent brands including Ariel, Fena, Henko, and Ghadi also use blue hues in their packaging, indicating that packaging elements alone could not imply brand-specific targeting. The defendant’s legal team also sought to justify the advertisements as falling within the permissible scope of puffery and fair comparison in commercial speech.

Judgement:

However, Justice Singh, after examining the overall context and the substance of the commercials, held a prima facie view that the tone and sequence of the impugned ads were suggestive enough to be linked to Surf Excel, thus entering the domain of disparagement rather than fair comparison. She noted that even without explicit naming, the flow and content of the ads gave a reasonable impression of referencing HUL’s product, particularly when viewed in conjunction with the language and imagery used. Consequently, the Court held that such forms of advertising, while under the umbrella of competitive marketing, must not devolve into innuendo-driven attacks which degrade another brand. In this light, Justice Singh issued an interim injunction directing RSPL to remove the offending phrases from the ongoing campaigns. Specifically, the Court prohibited the use of the phrases “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate,” “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai,” and “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai,” and mandated that amended versions of the ads be broadcast only after the specified content had been eliminated. The Court granted RSPL time until June 24, 2025, to implement the edits and restrained them from airing the unedited versions thereafter. Summons were issued to the defendants, and the Court directed them to file their reply to HUL’s interim injunction application within two weeks. The matter has been listed for the next hearing before the regular roster bench on July 16, 2025. The ruling marks a significant checkpoint in comparative advertising jurisprudence in India, emphasizing that while healthy competition is legally permissible, advertisers must steer clear of messaging that can be reasonably interpreted as derogatory or defamatory. The Court has made it clear that the threshold for disparagement does not require explicit naming if the contextual clues unmistakably point to a competitor’s product. The decision sends a strong signal to advertisers to exercise caution and responsibility in comparative campaigns and underscores the judiciary’s role in maintaining ethical standards in brand competition. By protecting both the sanctity of fair competition and the reputation of existing trademarks, the Delhi High Court’s order reinforces a principled balance between commercial free speech and consumer perception. As the case proceeds to the next stage, it remains to be seen whether the advertising company will alter its strategy or escalate the matter further.