On this page
Delhi HC questions jurisdiction in HUL’s challenge to Beco’s Surf Excel, Vim ads
Our read
The case highlights the value of diligence on advertising-claim substantiation and litigation venue when assessing FMCG targets or competitive partnerships.
Watch
Disclosure of scientific evidence, product testing, ingredient lists, or regulatory standards supporting either side's claims.
Ask next
The report,
Delhi High Court questioned jurisdiction over HUL’s case against Beco’s campaign alleging Surf Excel and Vim contain skin-irritating chemicals. Beco says its products exclude the cited ingredients; the court suggested HUL could file in Bombay High Court.
Reported figures
From the report. Source details below
| Beco volume grew 609% in | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Beco FY25 revenue: | ₹111 crore |
| Beco FY25 loss: | ₹21.7 crore |
Other figures
- Beco founded in 2019
What to track next
- Consumer complaints, ASCI proceedings, or retailer/platform responses to the advertising claims.
Likely next moves
Our read of what comes next — analysis, not reported by the source.
- Beco will likely foreground the Mumbai connection while preparing scientific substantiation for claims about skin-irritating ingredients and comparative product safety.
- Competing FMCG and sustainability brands may test more carefully qualified comparative claims, using citations and disclaimers to avoid a similar challenge.
The counter-case
The case against this reading — not reported by the source.
A jurisdictional detour may be inconvenient for HUL, but it does not validate Beco’s advertising claims or materially alter consumer demand. If the case moves to Bombay, HUL can refile or pursue relief there; the underlying question remains whether Beco can substantiate chemical-irritation allegations and comparative references to Surf Excel and Vim. The signal may therefore overstate a procedural development as a competitive advantage for Beco.