He said the prescribed safety test was available but had not been conducted by Beco.
Merely relying on the possible effects of an ingredient in isolation could not establish that a finished formulation containing that ingredient will cause the same effects, he argued.
Sibal added that LAS is a commonly used surfactant which reduced surface tension and enabled cleaning products to remove grease and oil.
HUL also alleged that the advertisements mocked users of its products and suggested that the company was exploiting and misleading consumers.
But you cannot cross the Lakshman Rekha of calling your competitor’s products bad,” Sibal argued.
He said the prescribed safety test was available but had not been conducted by Beco. Merely relying on the possible effects of an ingredient in isolation could not establish that a finished formulation containing that ingredient will cause the same effects, he argued.
Sibal added that LAS is a commonly used surfactant which reduced surface tension and enabled cleaning products to remove grease and oil. It was used across the dishwashing market but Beco has singled out Vim and presented the ingredient as though it had no function other than causing irritation, the Court was told.
HUL also alleged that the advertisements mocked users of its products and suggested that the company was exploiting and misleading consumers.
HUL specifically objected to the use of its registered taglines, including Vim’s “100 nimbuon ki shakti” and Surf Excel’s “Daag Achhe Hain”, to identify the products being targeted.
“You can promote your product. You can even compare your product to other products. But you cannot cross the Lakshman Rekha of calling your competitor’s products bad,” Sibal argued.
