Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Case Title: Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. and The Advertising Standards Council of India

Case Number: A. No. 3024 of 2025 in C.S. No. 132 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:25605

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Date of Order: Pronounced on 7 October 2025 (Reserved on 18 July 2025)

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Kumaresh Babu

Facts of the Case

The dispute arises between two of India’s leading fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) giants — Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) and Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. (RB) — regarding the content and jurisdictional implications of certain advertisements. HUL, represented by its power agent Vidya Chandrasekar, filed an application to revoke the leave earlier granted to Reckitt Benckiser to institute a civil suit before the Madras High Court.

Reckitt Benckiser had initially approached the High Court challenging an order passed by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), which had found certain advertisements of Reckitt to be misleading, particularly concerning claims of “12-hour protection” and “protective shield.” ASCI’s decision stemmed from a complaint made by HUL against Reckitt’s advertisements, notably the “Lift Advertisement” and “Hands Advertisement”, both aired in Hindi.

HUL contended that since the complaint, the ASCI order, and related events occurred in Mumbai, the Madras High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. Reckitt, however, maintained that the advertisements were broadcast nationwide, including in Tamil Nadu in Tamil and English versions, thereby giving rise to part of the cause of action within the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction.

Procedural Details

This case emerged from an application — A. No. 3024 of 2025 — filed by HUL seeking revocation of the leave granted on 16 June 2025 in A. No. 2655 of 2025, which had permitted Reckitt Benckiser to institute its main suit (C.S. No. 132 of 2025) before the Madras High Court.

The application for revocation was argued by Mr. Madhan Babu for HUL, while Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Counsel, represented Reckitt Benckiser. The ASCI was represented by Advocate Mr. Avni Singh.

The central procedural question was whether the Madras High Court was the correct and convenient forum under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, which allows a court to exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territorial boundaries.

Nature of Dispute

The heart of the dispute revolved around territorial jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum conveniens. HUL argued that no material event occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court, since the ASCI’s order was passed in Mumbai, based on expert reports from Mumbai, and that both HUL and ASCI were based in Mumbai while Reckitt’s registered office was in Gurugram, Haryana.

HUL contended that the advertisements in question — the “Lift” and “Hands” advertisements — were in Hindi and were not telecast within Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the claim that any part of the cause of action arose in Chennai was unfounded. It relied upon several precedents, notably:

Madanlal Jalan v. Madanlal and Others, AIR 1949 Cal 495, which held that the question of granting leave under Clause 12 must be based on whether any substantial part of the cause of action arose within the court’s jurisdiction, and that the court must also consider convenience of parties (forum conveniens).

M/s. Duro Flex Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Duroflex Sittings System 150 and Another, (2014) 5 LW 673, where the Madras High Court’s Full Bench held that mere registration of a trademark in Chennai does not confer jurisdiction unless other substantive facts occur within its territory.

Ahmed Abdulla Ahmed Al Ghurair v. Star Health & Allied Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 13 SCC 259, where the Supreme Court emphasized that grant of leave under Clause 12 is discretionary and must consider the principle of forum conveniens to avoid harassment and forum shopping.

HUL therefore asserted that the balance of convenience lay in favor of Mumbai or Gurugram courts, as all material witnesses, records, and corporate offices were located there.

Reckitt, represented by Senior Counsel P.S. Raman, argued that the cause of action could not be narrowly confined to the place where the complaint was filed or order passed. Reckitt maintained that its advertisements were broadcast not only in Hindi but also in Tamil and English across multiple states, including Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the order of ASCI — which directed modification and withdrawal of the “12-hour protection” claim — affected Reckitt’s right to advertise in all languages and regions, including Tamil Nadu.

Detailed Reasoning of the Court

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu carefully analyzed the rival contentions, the jurisdictional principles under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent Act, and the doctrine of forum conveniens.

The Court began by recalling that leave to institute a suit under Clause 12 can be granted when even a part of the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. The “cause of action” was described as the entire bundle of essential facts which, if traversed, must be proved by the plaintiff to sustain a legal action.

The Court noted that the ASCI order was based on advertisements which, though in Hindi, concerned the general marketing claim of “12-hour protection” applicable across languages and markets. Therefore, the ASCI’s directive to modify or withdraw such claims was not language-specific but applied to all regional versions of Reckitt’s advertisements, including those in Tamil and English.

Justice Babu found merit in Reckitt’s argument that similar advertisements in Tamil and English were telecast within Tamil Nadu, thereby establishing a partial cause of action within the Madras High Court’s jurisdiction.

Citing the Division Bench’s decision in O.S.A. Nos. 242 & 243 of 2023, the Court reiterated that when a portion of the cause of action arises within its territorial limits, the Madras High Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction even if the principal offices of the parties are located outside its territory.

The Court further observed that the ASCI’s order impinged on Reckitt’s right to advertise nationwide, including within Tamil Nadu. Consequently, the alleged restriction imposed by ASCI had a direct impact within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

Addressing the doctrine of forum conveniens, Justice Babu held that while convenience is an important factor, it cannot override the legal determination that a part of the cause of action had arisen within Chennai. Since the advertisements were telecast and viewed in Chennai, the plaintiff’s right to advertise and the resultant grievance both existed within this jurisdiction.

The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by HUL, noting that in those cases no act or consequence of the impugned action occurred within the forum’s territory. Here, however, the advertisements in question were broadcast across Tamil Nadu, making the effect of the ASCI’s order tangible within the jurisdiction of this Court.

In essence, the Court concluded that Reckitt’s grievance was not limited to events in Mumbai or Gurugram but extended to its inability to air its advertisements within Tamil Nadu due to the ASCI order. Hence, the Madras High Court was competent to hear the case.

Judgment and Decision

After considering all arguments and precedents, the Madras High Court held that part of the cause of action indeed arose within its jurisdiction, since the advertisements subject to the ASCI order were telecast within Tamil Nadu in Tamil and English. Consequently, the order of ASCI had direct implications for Reckitt’s commercial and constitutional rights within the State.

The Court therefore dismissed HUL’s application (A. No. 3024 of 2025) seeking revocation of leave earlier granted to Reckitt Benckiser to institute its suit under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu concluded that the leave granted on 16 June 2025 was valid and properly exercised. The application for revocation was found meritless, and no costs were awarded.

Conclusion

This decision clarifies that in advertising and intellectual property disputes involving nationwide marketing, part of the cause of action arises wherever the advertisement is viewed or has an effect. The Court reaffirmed that jurisdiction is not confined to the site of corporate offices or regulatory orders but extends to any place where the impugned activity or its impact occurs.

The ruling also reiterates that the principle of forum conveniens cannot override the statutory right of a plaintiff to file a case where even a part of the cause of action exists. This ensures that corporations engaged in nationwide marketing cannot evade accountability merely by locating their headquarters outside the jurisdiction.

The Madras High Court thus upheld the balance between practical convenience and the need to ensure accessibility of justice, especially in disputes that span multiple states and linguistic markets.

Suggested Titles for Publication

Jurisdiction Beyond Boundaries: The Madras High Court’s Pragmatic Approach in the HUL–Reckitt Advertising Dispute

Advertising, Jurisdiction, and Forum Conveniens: A Simplified Analysis of HUL v. Reckitt Benckiser

Where Does an Advertisement “Exist”? Understanding Territorial Jurisdiction in the Digital Age

The Madras High Court on Clause 12 and the Reach of Cause of Action in Nationwide Advertising

When Hindi Meets Tamil: Jurisdictional Reasoning in the HUL–Reckitt Advertising Controversy

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi