Delhi HC questions jurisdiction in HUL’s challenge to Beco’s Surf Excel, Vim ads

Delhi High Court questioned whether it can hear HUL’s case against Beco’s campaign alleging Surf Excel and Vim contain skin-irritating chemicals, suggesting Bombay High Court may be the appropriate forum. Final arguments are scheduled for Monday.

— Source published Fri, 21 Aug, 2026, 19:14 IST · First seen Fri, 21 Aug, 2026, 19:18 IST · Source Mint

What happened

Hindustan Unilever · Delhi High Court questioned jurisdiction over HUL’s case against Beco’s campaign alleging Surf Excel and Vim contain skin-irritating

Key facts

  • Beco founded in 2019
  • Beco volume grew 609% in 2025
  • Beco FY25 revenue: ₹111 crore
  • Beco FY25 loss: ₹21.7 crore

Why this matters

The case highlights the value of diligence on advertising-claim substantiation and litigation venue when assessing FMCG targets or competitive partnerships.

What to watch

  • Monday's order or oral observations on whether Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction.
  • Any interim direction requiring Beco to pause, alter, qualify, or preserve the disputed ads.
  • Whether HUL files or signals an immediate Bombay High Court action.
  • Disclosure of scientific evidence, product testing, ingredient lists, or regulatory standards supporting either side's claims.
  • Expansion of Beco's campaign across television, digital, marketplaces, or additional cities during the procedural delay.
  • Consumer complaints, ASCI proceedings, or retailer/platform responses to the advertising claims.
  • HUL is likely to emphasize the campaign's Delhi publication, consumer impact, and digital accessibility to preserve Delhi High Court jurisdiction.
  • If jurisdiction is rejected, HUL may rapidly file in Bombay High Court with an interim-injunction application and seek continuity of pleadings or evidence.
  • Beco will likely foreground the Mumbai connection while preparing scientific substantiation for claims about skin-irritating ingredients and comparative product safety.
  • HUL may increase counter-messaging around ingredient safety, testing, regulatory compliance, and long-standing consumer trust rather than rely solely on court restraint.
  • Competing FMCG and sustainability brands may test more carefully qualified comparative claims, using citations and disclaimers to avoid a similar challenge.

Also reported by