Introduction
In today’s competitive marketing environment, brands are
constantly looking for ways to stand out and capture consumer
attention. One strategy that has gained significant traction in
recent years is the use ofcomparative advertising,
where companies directly or indirectly highlight their
product’s superiority over their competitors. According to the
ASCI 2024 Annual Complaints Report, a staggering 81% of all ad
violations in the fiscal year 2023–24 were due to misleading
claims, with 85% of these objectionable ads originating from
digital platforms. The personal care sector, which includes
skincare and sunscreen products, accounted for 13% of the total
violations, underscoring the prevalence of such issues in this
category.1This growing trend of misleading or
disparaging advertisement has sparked legal battles that bring
forth questions about fairness, ethical marketing, and brand
rivalry. One such battle unfolded betweenHonasa
Consumer LimitedandHindustan Unilever
Limited (HUL)2over a
controversial sunscreen advertisement that sparked a clash of legal
and commercial interests.
The Sunscreen Showdown: Honasa vs. HUL
The conflict began when Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL)
launched a television and digital advertisement for its
Lakmé Sun Expert SPF 50 sunscreen. The commercial
prominently showcased the superior efficacy of its sunscreen, which
purportedly offered SPF 50 protection. However, it also made
implicit claims about its competitors, including Honasa Consumer
Limited (Honasa), the parent company of Mamaearth and The Derma Co.
The advertisement depicted a similar product, which Honasa claimed
was unfairly targeted, leading consumers to believe that it offered
inferior protection.
The advertisement featured visuals of a sunscreen product in
similar packaging, accompanied by claims such as “online
bestseller” and “SPF 50”, subtly hinting that these
claims applied to the rival product, The Derma Co’s 1%
Hyaluronic Sunscreen Aqua Gel. According to Honasa, the comparison
was not only misleading but also disparaging because it suggested
that The Derma Co’s sunscreen was ineffective or failed to
deliver what it promised.
In particular, Honasa took issue with the
“best-seller” label used in the advertisement, which they
argued was directly referencing their The Derma Co product. The
advertisement did not mention the competitor’s name, but it was
clear enough for viewers to make the connection. This, they
claimed, harmed their product’s reputation and misled consumers
into believing that their sunscreen was less effective. This
prompted Honasa to file a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, seeking
an injunction and requesting the advertisement to be modified or
withdrawn.
HUL’s Defence: The Battle in the Courtroom
The case was brought before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
which initially found that the advertisement could be construed as
disparaging, given the indirect reference to The Derma Co’s
product. HUL, however, argued that the advertisement was a
legitimate comparative advertisement, intended to highlight the
efficacy of their sunscreen rather than disparage any
competitor.
In its defence, HUL claimed that the advertisement did not
directly name The Derma Co’s product and that the use of terms
like “best-seller” was simply a marketing tactic to
appeal to a broader audience. They also argued that the commercial
adhered to the principles of fair competition in advertising,
focusing on the benefits of their product rather than disparaging
the competition.
The brand also pointed out that many consumers of Lakmé
Sun Expert SPF 50 were purchasing the product for its perceived
superiority, and comparative advertisements were a common industry
practice. Additionally, HUL argued that such advertisement did not
cause any actual harm to the sales or reputation of The Derma
Co’s sunscreen, thereby challenging the necessity of a legal
remedy.
Despite these arguments, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court ruled
that the advertisement crossed a line, as it indirectly referred to
Honasa’s product in a way that could mislead and confuse
consumers. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court emphasized that
competitive advertising should not undermine the reputation of
competitors by presenting misleading claims, even if the
competitor’s name was not directly mentioned.
The Resolution: A Modified Advertisement
In response to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s
observations, HUL made a significant concession. In a hearing
before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, HUL agreed to modify the
advertisement by:
- Removing any reference to “best-seller” and replacing
it with “some sellers.” - Refraining from using direct or implied references to The Derma
Co or its products in a manner that could be perceived as
disparaging. - Modifying the product’s visual to avoid a similarity in
packaging to The Derma Co’s sunscreen.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court accepted these modifications
and issued an order allowing the ad to resume circulation, but only
in its revised form.
Author’s Comment
The whole debate around the “best-seller” tag brings
to mind the song “I Am the Best”, full of confidence,
energy, and bold claims. While that kind of tone works well in
music, it doesn’t always translate the same way in
advertising.
In this case, even though HUL didn’t name any competitor
directly, the hints were strong enough to make viewers draw a
connection. And that’s what Honasa took issue with not just the
comparison, but the way it quietly suggested that their product
wasn’t good enough.
That’s where things can get tricky. When every brand starts
saying “I’m the best” while indirectly pulling others
down, it doesn’t help consumers, it only creates confusion.
There’s a fine line between promoting your strengths and
misrepresenting someone else’s. At the end of the day, it’s
not just about who says they’re the best, but how they say it.
Because when everyone is singing the same tune, what really matters
is who consumers trust — not who shouts the loudest.
Conclusion
This legal dispute is not just a battle between two brands but a
reminder that in the competitive world of FMCG advertising, the
stakes are higher than ever. While comparative advertising remains
a legitimate tool for showcasing product superiority, the Honasa
vs. HUL case highlights the dangers of crossing ethical boundaries.
Brands must remember that in the court of public opinion, their
credibility and reputation matter just as much as their advertising
claims.
This case also underscores the importance of fair play in
marketing and consumer trust. Disparaging advertisements may grab
attention temporarily, but the long-term repercussions on consumer
loyalty and brand equity can be far more damaging. Therefore,
brands need to strike a delicate balance between promoting their
products and maintaining a positive relationship with consumers and
competitors alike.
Footnotes
1
2 Honasa Consumer Limited vs Hindustan Unilever Limited,
CS(COMM) 342/2025 with I.A. 9696/2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
link
