Back
Reserves Jurisdiction Order in HUL's Disparagement Suit Against Beco
The on Monday reserved its order on the preliminary question of in Hindustan Unilever Limited’s (HUL) suit against , the company behind home-care brand Beco. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani heard detailed arguments from both sides and made it clear that no interim or ad-interim order—including HUL’s request to restrain Beco’s advertising campaign—would be passed until the court first decides whether it can entertain the suit at all.
The jurisdictional challenge has become the first legal hurdle in a dispute that pits one of India’s largest fast-moving consumer goods companies against a relatively newer challenger brand. HUL approached the court earlier this month alleging that Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign disparages its products Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel, while also infringing its trademarks and amounting to .
The Jurisdiction Question
Beco, represented by , raised a that the dispute has no sufficient territorial connection with Delhi. The company contended that HUL’s principal place of business is in Mumbai, that the physical advertisements identified were not located in Delhi, and that mere online availability of the campaign in the capital does not confer jurisdiction.
HUL, represented by , countered that the connection goes far beyond passive accessibility. Sibal argued that Beco’s advertising campaign is deliberately distributed across digital and social media platforms that reach consumers in Delhi, and crucially, that Beco’s own website allows consumers in the city to place orders for its products. This, according to HUL, creates an active commercial engagement with Delhi—transforming the jurisdiction from a place where content is merely viewable to one where the brand actually transacts.
“The campaign is interactive; a consumer in Delhi can view the advertisement and immediately purchase the product through Beco’s website,” Sibal submitted, according to reports from the hearing. He relied on judicial precedents concerning online advertising and e-commerce to distinguish between a website that is simply accessible in a jurisdiction and a platform that facilitates actual commercial transactions there.
The Analogy
Beco sought to analogise product disparagement to , arguing that the same jurisdictional principles applicable to reputational harm should govern where such a suit can be filed. In cases, jurisdiction is typically linked to where the wrong occurred or where the parties reside.
HUL strongly disputed this parallel. Sibal argued that the statutory provision relied upon by Beco—likely , which deals with jurisdiction in suits for damages for wrongs to person or movable property—applies only to claims seeking monetary compensation. HUL’s suit, he pointed out, primarily seeks an to prevent further dissemination of the allegedly disparaging advertisements, not damages.
More fundamentally, Sibal submitted that product disparagement and personal are legally distinct causes of action governed by separate lines of precedent. “Decisions restricting in cases cannot automatically be applied to a dispute over advertising claims about a commercial product,” he argued. The court appeared receptive to this distinction, though it reserved its final view.
E-Commerce as a Jurisdictional Anchor
HUL’s strongest argument appears to be the . By demonstrating that Beco’s website accepts orders from Delhi consumers, HUL seeks to establish a direct commercial link between the alleged disparaging campaign and the forum. This goes beyond the “” standard that courts have often been reluctant to treat as a sufficient jurisdictional hook.
Sibal elaborated that the ability to transact creates an actual commercial presence in Delhi, making it a place where the brand not only reaches consumers but also derives economic benefit. The argument aligns with evolving jurisprudence on internet-based jurisdiction, where courts have increasingly required something more than passive website accessibility to establish —such as targeted advertising, sales, or other interactive features.
Beco, however, maintained that HUL must show a more specific connection between the alleged wrong and Delhi. It pointed out that the campaign was not exclusively aimed at Delhi consumers and that the company itself is based elsewhere.
No Interim Relief Until the Threshold is Crossed
Justice Bhambhani made clear that the court will not proceed to examine the merits of HUL’s application until the jurisdiction issue is resolved. This means that Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign remains live in the interim, despite HUL’s allegations that it misleads consumers by linking ingredients such as Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) to skin irritation without conducting finished-product safety tests.
HUL had indicated that it still has additional material to present on the merits of its plea for an interim , including submissions on why the advertising falls afoul of norms. The judge noted that those arguments will be taken up only if HUL first succeeds on the jurisdiction front.
Implications for Disputes
The outcome of this preliminary issue has broader implications for how courts approach in an era of digital commerce. As brands increasingly rely on online advertising and direct-to-consumer sales, the question of where a disparagement suit can be filed becomes strategically important.
If the holds that e-commerce activity—such as the ability of local consumers to order products—creates sufficient territorial nexus, it could set a precedent that allows brand owners to sue smaller competitors in jurisdictions where the competitor’s website is commercially active, even if the competitor has no physical presence there. Conversely, if the court sides with Beco, it may reinforce the traditional view that jurisdiction in disparagement cases should be tied to the location of the alleged wrong or the parties’ residences.
Legal practitioners will also watch how the court navigates the analogy. A clear ruling that product disparagement is distinct from personal for jurisdictional purposes would provide certainty in an area of law that often borrows concepts from one cause of action to another.
Awaiting the Ruling
With arguments complete, the has reserved its order on the . The matter—listed as CS(COMM) 904/2026—has not yet moved to the substantive question of whether Beco’s campaign amounts to . That stage will only be reached if Justice Bhambhani concludes that Delhi is the appropriate forum.
For now, the spotlight remains on the jurisdictional decision. It will determine not only where this particular battle is fought, but also set the stage for how future digital advertising disputes are litigated in the capital’s courts. The order is expected in due course.
