The Delhi High Court on Wednesday questioned its jurisdiction in the ongoing dispute between Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Beco, with Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani stating 'Jurisdiction comes first... Delhi High Court cannot be the only IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) court of the country'. According to Mint, the judge suggested that HUL could withdraw the plea and approach the Bombay High Court to resolve jurisdictional concerns. Beco's counsel argued that HUL must show that Beco specifically targeted Delhi through its online activities for the court to claim jurisdiction. The matter will be heard for final arguments on Monday.
The **Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought a response from Beco in a suit filed by consumer goods giant Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), alleging that Beco had disparaged HUL's products Surf Excel and Vim by saying they cause skin irritation. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued notice to Kwick Living (I) Private Limited, which owns Beco, on HUL's disparagement and trademark infringement suit and its application seeking an interim injunction. The court, however, declined to pass an interim restraint after hearing HUL's submissions and said it wanted to hear Beco's response before deciding the plea.
As reported by Bar and Bench, Beco recently launched its '#WarOnWhatsHidden' campaign through videos, social media posts, influencers and outdoor hoardings. The campaign specifically compares Beco's laundry and dishwashing liquids with Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel. According to HUL's submissions cited by Live Law Biz, the advertisements claim that two chemicals, Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS), are present in Surf Excel, while LAS is present in Vim. The campaign says these ingredients can cause skin irritation and allergic reactions. Beco also claims its own laundry and dishwash products are formulated without BIT and LAS.
According to Bar and Bench, Senior advocate Amit Sibal, representing HUL, argued that Beco had tested products to establish chemical presence and concentration but failed to test whether finished products cause skin irritation or allergic reactions under normal use. Sibal told the court that the advertisement is 'untrue and misleading and disparaging, all three'. HUL reportedly argued that effects of ingredients in isolation cannot establish that finished products containing those ingredients will produce the same effects. Sibal also said a prescribed safety test for finished products was available but had not been conducted by Beco. HUL further alleged that Beco's campaign mocked users of its products and suggested that the company was misleading consumers.
According to Mint, Beco has emerged as a significant player in the FMCG sector with volume growth of 609% in 2025, as reported by market research firm NIQ in its report titled Who's Really Winning FMCG Volume Growth in 2026?. The company reported revenue of ₹111 crore in FY25 with a ₹21.7 crore loss, according to market intelligence platform Tracxn. Founded in 2019 by Aditya Ruia, Akshay Varma, and Anuj Ruia, the company has attracted investors including Tanglin Venture Partners, Titan Capital Winners Fund, Asian Paints promoter Manish Choksi, Rukam Capital, and Synergy Capital. The company focuses on sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives to single-use plastics in homecare and personal care segments.
As reported by Live Law, Senior advocate Chander M Lall, appearing for Kwick Living, sought additional time to respond to the allegations. The court directed Beco to **file its reply by the end of Thursday and share an advance copy with HUL. The case will come up for hearing on the interim relief sought by HUL. On the question of interim relief, HUL argued that the balance of convenience was in its favour, saying Beco could continue advertising its products without making references to HUL's brands, while continued dissemination of the disputed campaign could cause lasting reputational damage to HUL.
