Delhi High Court Orders Ghadi Detergent to Remove Disparaging Surf Excel References in Ads

The ruling is remarkable, for no other high-stakes commercial spat of this magnitude between two titans of the burgeoning Indian fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) industry—Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and RSPL Limited (RSPL)—has ever reached the doors of the Delhi High Court. 

HUL had filed a suit for getting a permanent injunction against RSPL, alleging that RSPL’s ads over the past couple of years for its ‘Ghadi’ detergent denigrate HUL’s flagship product, ‘Surf Excel.’ This case serves as a warning about the dangers of crossing the line from fair advertising into making negative claims about competitors, especially in the highly competitive detergent market.

As revealed by HUL’s lawsuit, the idea is to reframe its defamation claims through the lens of commercial defamation.

For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators )

Hindustan Unilever Limited, the leading company in the detergent segment with its Surf-branded products and an annual turnover of up to Rs. 11,000 Crore in India, alleges that RSPL’s Ghadi detergent advertisements insidiously and deceptively blast and vilify Surf Excel. 

The brand of detergent that succeeded was the ‘Surf’ brand HUL launched in 1996. The ‘Surf Excel’ brand is one of the largest-selling products in India, packaged in millions of blue-colored parcels. It has been claimed by HUL that the RSPL’s matching ads, which RSPL rolled out (in the counter-advertising war) during the first week of June 2025, disparage ‘Surf Excel’ by way of ridiculing it by way of unprovable derogatory statements.

These are the only three clearly identifiable elements in RSPL’s ads that HUL alleges beyond reasonable doubt identify the targeting and disparagement—the packaging (in light blue and dark blue colors), use of the term ‘XL Blue,’ as well as use of rhetoric like ‘Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai,’ which HUL claims was directly inspired from its own popular tagline ‘Daag Acche Hai.’ 

HUL objects to the use of expressions in the competing ads such as ‘Na Na, yeh dhoka hai’ (No no, this is cheating) and ‘Aapka kare badi badi baatein, dho nahi patey’ (Your product does big big washing, does not wash), asserting that the latter are defamatory to ‘Surf Excel.’

Intervenor RSPL in Support of Defending Order on Appeal

In support of its position, RSPL Limited, through its counsel, argues in favor of the idea that HUL ought not to be given a monopoly over the word ’Excel’ and attached the disclaimer submitted by HUL against its trademark application for ‘Excel.’ 

RSPL counters that there is nothing special about ‘Ghadi’ and there are many competitive, blue-colored washing powders already on the packed shelves, like Fena, Ariel, Henko, and Wheel. RSPL alleges that the mark names ‘XL Blue’ and ‘XL’ are third-party registered marks dating back to as early as 2018.

Court’s Prima Facie Opinion and Initial Directions

On the face of the four impugned commercials, considered from the standpoint of a person of ordinary prudence, the offending advertisements were a fairly clear indication of HUL’s ‘Surf Excel’ product. 

In a perhaps ludicrous turn of this saga, the court responded by significantly broadening a fundamental legal principle that has been as established and clear as the sun rising in the east—specifically, that while comparative advertising is allowed when promoting one’s own product, it must not be intentionally misleading or derogatory towards a competitor’s product. as a defense, and the law prohibits commercial defamation and disparagement.

Relying heavily on these principles, the judgment concluded that under the facts of this case, a number of catchlines and slogans used in RSPL’s advertisements were indeed derogatory and had a depreciatory sense towards ‘Surf Excel.’ 

The court has required RSPL to cease use of these specific terms in their promotional materials by June 24th, 2025. The reprimanded taglines include memorable, market-defining jingles such as Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate, Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai (promoting HUL’s Surf Excel), and Na Na, yeh dhoka hai. The Roster Bench has scheduled a second hearing for this extraordinarily complex procedural question on July 16, 2025.

These jingles can be much more impactful than they currently are. And they currently are. And they currently are.

This winning scenario illuminates the hyperaggressive competitive strategies used by companies in low-differentiation, high-consumer-loyalty industries like the detergent market. It wisely narrows a far-reaching, anti-consumer major harms standard to what truly is acceptable comparative advertising and actionable disparagement. 

The court’s April 24 interim order should serve as a powerful reminder to advertisers and marketers nationwide, emphasizing that while it’s permissible to patent the rooster and compare oneself to a competitor, it’s not acceptable to directly attack a competitor’s product by making false and misleading statements. On the heels of these precedent-setting rules, this ruling can have an extreme impact on advertising campaigns across all industries for years to come, forcing brands to advertise their merits instead of attacking their competitors.