Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), the parent company of Lakmé, has informed the Delhi High Court that it will withdraw and revise its advertisements following allegations from Honasa Consumer Limited, owner of The Derma Co, claiming the ads disparage their brand.
HUL told Justice Amit Bansal that it would remove all online posts related to the advertisement within 24 hours and take down hoardings within 48 hours. Additionally, HUL committed to changing the colour of the product bottle featured in the ad from orange to yellow to prevent any perceived similarity with The Derma Co’s packaging.
The court hearing is set to continue on Monday.
The disputed advertisement, titled ‘SPF Lie Detector Test’, was first aired on April 12 and included claims such as “Says SPF 50 but gives SPF 20” and “SPF 50, Truth 100,” while referring to an “online bestseller” without naming any brand explicitly. Honasa alleged that the ad’s packaging design and colour closely resembled its own product and that the campaign falsely implied their sunscreen was ineffective.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, representing Honasa along with Advocate Ankit Jain and a legal team from Sim & San, described the campaign as a “classic hit and run,” arguing the ad suggested that using The Derma Co’s sunscreen could cause skin pigmentation without any credible evidence presented to the court.
HUL, represented by Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi and Jayant Mehta and Advocate Ajay Bhargava from Khaitan & Co, countered by presenting clinical evidence claiming The Derma Co’s product did not meet SPF 50 standards. They submitted a two-page executive summary of a test report dated February 27, 2025.
Honasa challenged the credibility of this test summary, pointing out the absence of specific details such as the exact product tested. The company provided full reports from two accredited laboratories, including Clinical Research Private Limited, certifying that their sunscreen complies with SPF 50 requirements.
While Honasa acknowledged that comparative advertising is allowed, it argued that HUL crossed legal boundaries by implying their product was not only inferior but also unsafe and unreliable.
When the court sought clarity on HUL’s willingness to withdraw the campaign, the company agreed to comply. HUL also requested that Honasa remove its counter-ads, to which Honasa responded that it had already taken down related online content.
The case will be reviewed again on Monday for further proceedings.
4.1-mini
