Hindustan Unilever Limited, manufacturer of Surf Excel, filed a suit against RSPL Limited, maker of Ghadi detergent, alleging that RSPL’s recent television and digital commercials contained derogatory references to Surf Excel.
After HUL issued a cease-and-desist notice on June 7, 2025, which RSPL declined to accept, HUL approached the Delhi High Court under trademark and unfair-competition laws to seek injunctive relief.
Court’s Immediate Injunction
On June 24, 2025, Justice Prathiba M. Singh granted HUL’s prayer for an interim injunction. The Court ordered RSPL to remove three specific phrases from its Ghadi ads before broadcasting them further:
“The Defendant (RSPL) shall carry out the proper amendments in the impugned advertisements by 24th June 2025 and only then telecast/broadcast the impugned commercials.”
RSPL must comply with this directive before any further telecast or digital dissemination of the four contested advertisements featuring actor Ravi Kishan.
Phrases Deemed Derogatory
The High Court identified the following expressions as prima facie defamatory toward Surf Excel:
“Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate” (“Your product makes tall claims but cannot wash”).
“Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai” (“Its foam is good, price is good”), which the Court found to be a play on HUL’s “Daag acche hain” campaign.
“Na Na, yeh dhoka hai” (“No, no, this is a fraud”).
These lines, together with visual elements such as light and dark blue packaging and the term “XL Blue,” were ruled to be targeted jibes at Surf Excel.
HUL’s Arguments
HUL emphasized its long-standing market presence—marketing Surf Excel since 1996 in distinctive blue packaging—and an annual turnover of approximately ₹11,000 crore for its Surf-branded products. Its legal team argued that RSPL’s ads:
Imitated Surf Excel’s blue color scheme.
Misused the word “Excel” in the term “XL Blue.”
Parodied HUL’s well-known “Daag acche hain” slogan.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, assisted by Saikrishna Rajagopal, Vivek Ayyagari, Julien George, Arjun Ghadhoke, and Abhinav Bhalla of Saikrishna & Associates, contended these elements collectively tarnished HUL’s brand reputation.
RSPL’s Defense
RSPL, represented by Senior Advocate Chander M. Lall with Nancy Roy, Annanya Chug, and Prashant of Lall & Sethi, countered that:
Blue packaging and the term “Excel” are not exclusively owned by HUL; multiple detergent brands employ similar hues and nomenclature.
HUL’s trademark registrations include disclaimers limiting exclusive claims.
RSPL maintained that its advertisements amounted to permissible comparative advertising.
“It is permissible for an advertiser to undertake an advertising campaign to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product.”
While “puffing up” one’s own product is lawful, unfair denigration of a rival crosses the line into actionable defamation.
With the offending phrases excised, the matter is set for further argument on July 16, 2025. The Court will then examine whether RSPL’s modified advertisements still infringe HUL’s rights or comply with fair-competition norms. Both parties are preparing detailed submissions on the scope of permissible comparative claims and the public interest in honest advertising.
(Inputs By Sambhav Sharma)
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
