Hindustan Unilever Limited. Vs USV Private Limited.

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 09.06.2022
CASE NO: Commercial IP Suit (L) No.805 of 2021
CASE TITLE: Hindustan Unilever Limited. Vs USV Private Limited.
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: Hon'ble High Court of Bombay
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: Hon'ble Justice A.K.Menon

Important Finding in the Decision: 1. The Subject matter Suit was filed by the Plaintiff against advertising campaign launched by the defendant to publicize its products under the brand SEBAMED, amounting to disparagement of plaintiffs’ products viz. Lux, Dove, Pears and Rin. Para 1-2.

2. The plaintiffs are particularly aggrieved by the fact the plaintiffs’ soap Lux was said to have a pH value of 10 equivalent to the plaintiffs’ detergent soap Rin thereby alluding to the fact that by using Lux was equivalent to using a
detergent Rin whereas SEBAMED had a “perfect pH 5.5. for sensitive
skin.”Para 8.

3.Thus it was alleged that use of Plaintiff's product namely Lux, which have pH value 10, equivalent to a detergent soap. Hence it was not suitable to sensitive skin. While Defendant's SEBAMED product was having pH value of 5.5, hence was suitable to sensitive skin.

4.The Court observed that comparison by the Defendant with Plaintiff's soap is not appropriate. Both the competing products of the parties do not intended to serve same purpose. Para 69.

5.The Defendant tried to disparage the Plaintiff's product Lux by making its comparison with RIN which is a detergent . Para 77.

6.Defendant's product is alkali free and is suitable for sensitive skin only. Since Defendant's product was soap free hence making its comparison with pH value of Plaintiff's product is unfair and unreasonable. Para 74,78.

7.Defendant's campaign was also found to be disparaging given the fact that as per own admission of the Defendant, most of the soap reflects pH value in the range of 9.01 to 11. Para 80.

8.The comparison done by the Plaintiff was neither bonafide nor scientific. Para 81.

9. Comparison made on the basis of pH value , was also unfair. The comparative advertisement made by the Defendant attempted to discredit the Plaintiff's product. Para 82.

10.Resultantly , Plaintiff was granted interim injunction against the Defendants.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate,
Hon’ble Delhi High Court,
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com,
9990389539