Delhi HC Directs Ghadi Detergent Maker to Remove Derogatory References to Surf Excel from Ads

Delhi HC Directs Ghadi Detergent Maker to Remove Derogatory References to Surf Excel from Ads

The Delhi High Court has directed RSPL Limited, the manufacturer of Ghadi detergent, to remove certain disparaging remarks aimed at rival brand Surf Excel from its ongoing television and digital advertisements.

Justice Prathiba M Singh passed the interim order on a lawsuit filed by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), the maker of Surf Excel. The Court found that three specific phrases used in RSPL's ads were clearly derogatory and targeted HUL's product.

The Court has given RSPL time until June 24, 2025, to modify the advertisements before resuming their broadcast. “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,” the order stated.

The following phrases were found objectionable and must be removed:

  • “Aapka kare badi badi baatein par dho nahi paate” (Your product makes tall claims but fails to wash),

  • “Iske jhaag acche hai, daam acche hai” (Its foam is good, price is good), and

  • “Na Na, yeh dhoka hai” (No, no, this is a fraud).

According to the Court, these expressions directly refer to Surf Excel and appear to distort the message of HUL’s well-known “Daag Acche Hai” campaign.

HUL approached the court after RSPL allegedly refused to comply with a cease-and-desist notice issued on June 7, objecting to four advertisements that aired earlier this month featuring actor Ravi Kishan. HUL claimed that these ads intentionally mimicked the Surf Excel brand identity through similar blue packaging, the use of the term "XL Blue," and phrases referencing its trademark slogan.

RSPL, however, denied any wrongdoing and argued that HUL does not have exclusive rights over blue packaging or the word "Excel", noting that HUL’s trademark registration includes disclaimers on both.

Applying legal standards on comparative advertising, the Court observed that while puffery or self-promotion is allowed, deliberate defamation or tarnishing of a competitor's product is not.

“It is permissible for an advertiser to promote its own product so long as the same is not deliberately tarnishing or defaming the competitor’s product,” the Court stated.

The matter is now scheduled to be heard again on July 16.

Legal Representation:

  • HUL was represented by Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, along with advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Vivek Ayyagari, Julien George, Arjun Ghadhoke, and Abhinav Bhalla from Saikrishna and Associates.

  • RSPL was represented by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall, with advocates Nancy Roy, Annanya Chug, and Prashant from Lall and Sethi.

Share this News

Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy