The Delhi High Court took note of a commercial dispute involving allegations of disparagement and directed Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) major Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) to modify and withdraw certain advertisements concerning its Lakme sunscreen product. The Court’s intervention came in a suit filed by Honasa Consumer Limited, which owns the Derma Co brand, alleging that HUL’s advertisement campaign unfairly impugned the credibility and quality of its product. Observing the need to preserve market fairness, the Court noted that advertisers must refrain from suggestive representations which could potentially mislead consumers and malign competing brands.
The matter stemmed from an advertisement campaign launched by HUL in relation to its Lakme sunscreen product, which employed slogans such as “Says SPF 50 but gives SPF 20” and “SPF 50, Truth 100.” These slogans were broadcast through an “SPF Lie Detector Test” format first aired on April 12, 2025. The advertisement depicted packaging that bore a visual resemblance to Derma Co’s product line and included references to an "online bestseller," insinuating that it failed to deliver on its stated SPF protection and could contribute to skin pigmentation issues. Honasa claimed that this campaign was calculated to damage its brand’s market reputation and mislead consumers.
The counsel representing Honasa argued that the impugned advertisement was a deliberate attempt to disparage its product, alleging that the narrative falsely suggested the Derma Co sunscreen was ineffective and responsible for skin damage. It was submitted that Hindustan Unilever Limited failed to substantiate its claims with comprehensive data and relied solely on an incomplete two-page executive summary of a test report dated February 27, 2025. Honasa’s legal team emphasized that such partial disclosure lacked probative value and failed to identify the exact product tested. Further, Honasa produced complete clinical test results from recognized laboratories certifying that its sunscreen adhered to the SPF 50 standard, thereby challenging the veracity of HUL’s assertions.
On the other hand, the counsel for Hindustan Unilever Limited maintained that the advertisement was backed by scientific data and that comparative advertising is permissible under the law, provided it remains within fair limits. It was contended that HUL possessed clinical evidence that demonstrated that Honasa’s product did not meet the SPF 50 benchmark. Additionally, it was argued that Honasa had not shown any exceptional loss that would warrant judicial interference at this stage. HUL also requested the Court to direct Honasa to remove a counter-advertisement published in retaliation, to which Honasa responded that its posts had already been taken down from online platforms.
During the proceedings, Justice Amit Bansal directed Hindustan Unilever Limited to clarify whether it was willing to withdraw or amend the advertisement campaign in light of the objections raised. Following this, Hindustan Unilever Limited conveyed its intention to republish the campaign with necessary alterations. It agreed to eliminate any references that could be perceived as directly targeting Derma Co and to change the product colour depicted in the advertisement from orange to yellow in order to prevent any visual association. HUL also assured the Court that all online content would be removed within 24 hours and physical hoardings within 48 hours.
In light of these submissions, the Delhi High Court recorded the undertakings furnished by HUL and scheduled the matter for further reporting and compliance on the upcoming Monday. The Court refrained from granting any immediate injunctive relief in view of the voluntary steps taken by Hindustan Unilever Limited, while implicitly reiterating that comparative advertising must not transgress into actionable disparagement. The suit remains pending for monitoring of compliance with the directions issued.
Picture Source :
