Bombay HC relief to HUL in a soap war – Times of India

MUMBAI: A soap war landed in court on Monday drawing acerbic lines.
Bombay high court passed urgent interim orders in favour of HUL against “disparaging” advertising by another soap manufacturer against its soap including Dove, Pears and Lux. The HC passed the order ex parte against another soap manufacturer USV—Sebamed soap— till January 14.
Justice B P Colabawalla passed the restraining order in a plea by the plaintiff, HIndustan Unilever Limited (HUL), against defendant, USV Pvt Ltd.
The HC order said HUL has “made a strong prima facie case” for grant of the relief, and directed, “pending hearing and final disposal of the present suit, the Defendant, its parent company, group companies, subsidiaries, directors, servants, officers, employees, representatives, agents, advertising agencies and all other persons claiming under them or acting in concert with them or on their behalf or acting on their instructions” are restrained from using, publicly communicating its ad campaign under challenge on all platforms including TV commercials, hoardings, banners in any language or in any manner.
Counsel for HUL Virag Tulzapurkar and Hiren Kamod submitted that while HUL is “amongst the most well known” manufacturer in the soap segment, USV in its newly launched ad campaign claims that its SEBAMED soap has a pH level of 5.5 and seeks to give an impression to the consumers and the public at large that any product which has a pH Level higher than that is not safe, is harmful and ought not to be used.
The “wrongful, misleading and malicious marketing tactics which are disparaging and denigrating” is with “a view to dent” the market shares of HUL by “targeting” its “popular soap products” which are “ market leaders” the HUL submitted before the bench.
Justice Colabawalla after hearing HUL submissions observed in his order, “It is clear that in comparative advertisements, the Defendant is entitled to claim that its product is better or best provided he does it without denigrating the Plaintiffs’ product. Further, if the manner of the defendant’s advertisement is ridiculing or condemning the product of the plaintiff, then it amounts to disparagement. Prima facie, in my view, the manner, storyline, intent and message sought to be conveyed by the Impugned Campaign not only shows that the Defendant’s product is better but also ridicules / derogates the products of the Plaintiffs. Prima facie, it does appear that by the Impugned Campaign, the Defendant is trying to infuence the consumers not to buy the (HUL) products.”
The HC sought a reply from USV but gave it liberty to apply for variation of this order with 48 hours prior notice to the HUL advocates, Khaitan & Co.