The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh has ordered Ghadi detergent powder to remove all "derogatory" phrases against Surf Excel detergent from its commercials. The bench observed that although comparative advertising is allowed, it should not harm or discredit a competitor’s product.

“Under such circumstances, though comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible and therefore, as an ad-interim arrangement, this Court is prima facie inclined to direct the Defendant to remove the following phrases which are clearly derogatory and make negative innuendos qua the Plaintiff’s ‘Surf Excel’ product, from the impugned advertisements.” the court ordered.

The suit was filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited, the manufacturer of Surf Excel products, against RSPL Limited, the manufacturer of Ghadi detergents, aiming to restrain the Defendants from airing an advertisement that is allegedly derogatory about its Surf Excel product. The dispute centres around a television commercial of Ghadi detergents, in which a woman is seen comparing two detergent packets, one of which strongly resembles Surf Excel owing to it’s blue-and-white colour scheme and prominent "XL" marking. She dismisses the first detergent, by using phrases such has “Na na, yeh dhoka hai” and “Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi paatey,” before praising Ghadi detergents for its better lather and lower pricing.

The Plaintiffs argued that although the ad did not explicitly name Surf Excel, the visual and verbal cues clearly pointed toward their product, thereby maligning its reputation with misleading claims.

The Defendants denied these allegations, stating that the commercial neither directly named Surf Excel nor disparaged it. They claimed the packaging shown was generic to the industry and that “XL Blue” is a registered trademark owned by a third party, not exclusively by HUL. The defendant maintained that comparative advertising is lawful as long as it does not involve malice or falsehood.

However, the Court disagreed with the Defendant’s submissions. It noted that an ordinary consumer would likely link the said product to brand Surf Excel, by way of its colour scheme and branding cues. It observed that while comparing products is allowed, it must not involve ridiculing another brand. The court further observed that in this case, the overall message through the various depictions was that Surf Excel was a substandard product in comparison to Ghadi detergents.

The Court also remarked that continued airing of the advertisement could potentially harm Surf Excel’s brand image. Consequently, it granted an ad-interim injunction, barring the Defendants from broadcasting or disseminating the commercial on any medium. The matter now is listed on 16th July, 2025.

Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. RSPL limited, CS(COMM) 629/2025

Advocate for Plaintiff: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Mr. Julien George, Mr. Arjun Ghadhoke & Mr. Abhinav Bhalla.

Advocate for Defendant: Mr. C.M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Annanya Chug & Mr. Prashant