Delhi HC seeks Beco reply in HUL suit over skin irritation ads

The Delhi High Court has sought a response from sustainable consumer goods startup Beco in a disparagement and trademark infringement suit filed by Hindustan Unilever (HUL). HUL alleges that Beco's advertising campaign falsely claims that its products Surf Excel and Vim cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. The court declined to pass an interim restraint on the advertisements, saying it wants to hear Beco's side first.

HUL's counsel argued that the campaign is not legitimate comparative advertising but an attempt to portray competing products as unsafe. They said Beco relied on findings about individual chemicals rather than testing the finished products. Beco's cofounder Aditya Ruia defended the campaign, saying every claim was substantiated by NABL-accredited lab tests and supported by scientific literature from WHO, OECD, and European Chemicals Agency.

The court has directed Beco to file its reply by August 21, when the matter will be heard next. HUL is seeking an interim injunction against the campaign, which launched across social media and hoardings on August 14.