Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh has issued an ad-interim directive restraining the Defendant from broadcasting certain derogatory expressions in its advertisements for Ghadi detergent. The Court, having prima facie found that the impugned phrases negatively reference the Plaintiff's product, ordered the Defendant to amend its commercials by removing specific expressions perceived to disparage the competing product. The matter was listed before the Roster Bench for further proceedings, and the Defendant was granted time to file its reply. The Court’s interim order was issued in the context of an ongoing dispute concerning alleged disparagement in comparative advertising.

The present suit arises from a commercial dispute between the Plaintiff, a leading manufacturer of detergent products under the brand 'Surf Excel,' and the Defendant, the producer of the 'Ghadi' detergent brand. The Plaintiff has approached the Court seeking an injunction against the Defendant's recently launched advertisements, alleging that they disparage and tarnish the reputation of the Plaintiff’s flagship product.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence | Last Seen, Ballistic Trail And Absconding Form Unbroken Chain Of Circumstantial Evidence

The Plaintiff is a prominent entity in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector and asserts that its Surf Excel brand has been a market leader in the detergent segment. The Plaintiff claims a turnover of approximately Rs. 11,000 Crore per annum for its Surf-branded products. Among the various packaging used, the blue packaging of Surf Excel has been identified as the most prominent. The Plaintiff states that the Surf brand was launched in 1996, followed by a transition in 2004 when the branding changed to ‘Surf Excel Blue.’ This variant was eventually replaced in 2012 with the current branding, ‘Surf Excel Easy Wash.’

The Defendant, RSPL Ltd., is a manufacturer and seller of the Ghadi detergent brand. In early June 2025, the Defendant launched a series of advertisements for Ghadi detergent across television and digital platforms. The Plaintiff alleges that four specific commercials, introduced between June 3 and June 7, 2025, contained content that directly targeted Surf Excel and included unsubstantiated and derogatory claims.

The Plaintiff submitted that the advertisements referred to features and slogans clearly associated with its product. These included similarities in packaging colors (light and dark blue), the use of the term ‘XL Blue,’ and slogans resembling the Plaintiff’s well-known campaign phrase ‘Daag Acche Hai.’ The commercials were said to contain dialogues such as “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai,” and “Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey,” which the Plaintiff interpreted as allusions to its advertising themes.

The Plaintiff argued that the commercials also contained explicit disparagement, including phrases like “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai,” which could mislead consumers and damage the goodwill and reputation of its product. As evidence, the Plaintiff placed the storyboards of the advertisements on record and sought to introduce video recordings through digital storage devices. The Plaintiff also served a cease-and-desist notice to the Defendant on June 7, 2025, demanding the withdrawal of the commercials. However, the Defendant did not comply, leading to the initiation of the present suit.

The Defendant, represented by senior counsel, submitted that the Plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the term ‘Excel,’ referencing a disclaimer in the Plaintiff’s trademark registration (No.1065243). The Defendant further contended that several detergent brands in the market use blue-coloured packaging, including Fena, Ariel, Henko, Ghadi, and Wheel. Additionally, the term ‘XL Blue’ was asserted to be a registered trademark of a third party since 2018.

The Defendant maintained that the packaging of the Plaintiff’s product involved multiple colours and design elements, making it distinct and not monopolizable in general advertising themes. The Defendant argued that its advertisements constituted permissible puffery aimed at promoting its own product rather than defaming the Plaintiff's.

On procedural grounds, the Plaintiff had filed various interlocutory applications, including those seeking exemption from filing original documents (I.A. 14820/2025), exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (I.A. 14816/2025), and exemption from filing court fees (I.A. 14817/2025), all of which were disposed of accordingly. The Court allowed the Plaintiff to place digital video recordings on record and granted leave to file additional documents under the applicable rules.

The matter was heard through hybrid mode by the Vacation Bench on June 20, 2025. Summons were issued, and timelines were set for filing the written statement, replication, and affidavits of admission or denial.

In the course of its order, the Court recorded its legal reasoning for granting interim relief, beginning with the permissibility of comparative advertising.

"The settled legal position in this regard has been considered and decided in various decisions of this Court passed by the Co-ordinate Benches as also Division Benches."

Summarising the governing principles, the Court stated:

(i) That 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;

(ii) There ought to be no derogatory remarks made against any competitor’s product;

(iii) While puffing is permissible, defamation and tarnishment is not.

Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Court recorded its preliminary view: "The Court has viewed the four commercials against which the interim injunction is being sought."

"The manner in which the advertisements themselves flow, from a lay persons point of view, clearly the reference that is being made to the competitor’s product by the Defendant could be taken to be ‘Surf Excel’ i.e. product of the Plaintiff."

On the language used in the commercials, the Court further observed: "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."

The Court noted that expressions such as ‘Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate’, ‘Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai’, and ‘Na Na, yeh dhoka hai’ prima facie appeared to be direct references to Surf Excel and were likely to tarnish its image in the public mind.

"The said expressions, viewed in conjunction with the colour themes and terminology used, prima facie give an impression that the advertisements are not merely promoting the Defendant’s product but are disparaging the Plaintiff’s product."

The Court held that while comparative advertising could be beneficial for consumers and foster healthy competition, it should not cross into disparagement.

"Comparative advertising by itself could be healthy, remarks that are derogatory and defamatory, would not be permissible."

The Court also took into consideration the Plaintiff’s earlier cease-and-desist notice, noting that the Defendant’s refusal to comply necessitated judicial intervention.

"A Cease-and-Desist Notice was issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on 7th June, 2025. However, the requisitions of the Plaintiff were denied leading to filing of the present suit."

Based on the material on record and legal principles applicable to comparative advertising, the Court issued the following ad-interim directions:

"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:

‘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’ - Expressions which clearly refers to the Plaintiff’s product prima facie and appear to be derived from the ‘Daag ache hai’ campaign of the Plaintiff]

Also Read: Delay In Relaying Information Sought By High Court Amounts To Misconduct | Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Penalty Against District Court Clerk

‘Na Na, yeh dhoka hai’ [‘No, No, this is a fraud (product)’]

"The Defendant shall carry out the proper amendments in the impugned advertisements by 24th June 2025 and only then telecast/broadcast the impugned commercials."

The Court granted time for the Defendant to file its reply within two weeks, with the Plaintiff permitted to file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter.

"List before the Roster Bench on 16th July, 2025."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Mr. Sulien George, Mr. Arjun Ghadhoke, and Mr. Abhinav Bhalla, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. C.M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Annanya Chug, and Mr. Prashant, Advocates 

Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Ltd. vs. RSPL Ltd.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 629/2025

Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh