HUL Vs Honasa: Delhi HC Defers Hearing, Imposes Gag Order

(MENAFN- Live Mint) The Delhi high court on Monday deferred the hearing in the legal battle between Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) and Honasa Consumer Ltd over sunscreen advertisements.

The court also issued a gag order against both brands, restraining them from making any public or media statements related to the case.

The court also barred them from engaging in indirect publicity through social media, including liking or sharing posts.

The matter will now be heard on 25 April.

Also Read: Mint Primer: Why are sunscreen makers slugging it out in court?

During the Monday hearing, HUL lawyers informed the court that it had taken several corrective measures in compliance with the court's earlier order dated 17 April. These included taking down the impugned online video advertisement from all digital platforms.

HUL also said it had made visual modifications to the advertisement by changing the colour of the generic, unbranded sunscreen tube featured in the video. The yellow tube-previously seen as resembling The Derma Co.'s packaging-was replaced with a light yellow variant, a change that had been accepted during the court proceedings.

In addition to the video advertisement, HUL stated that it had modified or removed all print and outdoor advertisements in question. The tube's colour was updated across these formats, and the phrase“online bestseller” was replaced with“some sellers”.

HUL further claimed that it reached out to all 196 influencers involved in the campaign, despite the intervening national holiday on 18 April and the weekend that followed. Within 24 hours, 171 influencers had taken down their respective videos, and the remaining 25 complied within the next 24 hours.

However, Honasa's legal team disputed HUL's compliance claims. They argued that HUL's affidavit contained false or misleading statements and presented screenshots from HUL's own Instagram handle to demonstrate that some influencer videos remained live as of 20 April.

They also noted that HUL had failed to disclose how many outdoor advertisements were initially deployed, leaving it unclear whether full compliance had been achieved.

Also Read: A sunscreen brand war has exposed a regulatory gap

Honasa emphasized that it had to independently identify and track remaining non-compliant advetisements-something they said should not have been their burden.

The hearing became more heated when HUL flagged a LinkedIn post shared by“Pankhuri Agarwal”, who described the 17 April court development as a“big win for Ghazal Alagh and Honasa”. HUL objected that this amounted to public commentary on subjudice proceedings.

Honasa countered that the company made no official media statement, and that its founder, Ghazal Alagh, had only“liked” the LinkedIn post. HUL then pointed out that Pankhuri Agarwal was Honasa's brand ambassador.

Expressing dissatisfaction with both parties, the Delhi high court said that“in the spirit of settlement, this should not have happened”, and took serious note of public messaging and social media conduct.

The court made it clear that neither party should engage in any public posturing. It issued a stern gag order prohibiting both HUL and Honasa from making any statements to the media regarding the case.“No liking, no loving posts that say 'big win' for anyone,” the court added in a sharp remark.

The legal row began after HUL's Lakmé brand released an advertisement claiming that a popular“online bestseller” sunscreen provided only SPF 20 protection instead of the claimed SPF 50. While the ad did not name any brand, Honasa accused HUL of targeting its Derma Co. sunscreen and filed a suit alleging that the advertisement was misleading, disparaging, and aimed at harming its reputation.

Also Read: Are you wearing the right sunscreen?

Although no competitor was named, Honasa took issue with the visual cues, arguing the campaign disparaged its Derma Co. brand, which comes in orange-and-white packaging. Lakmé's products, by contrast, use a golden-yellow colour scheme.

HUL then filed counter-lawsuits against Honasa in the Bombay high court, accusing the rival brand of making disparaging claims in its own advertising.

MENAFN21042025007365015876ID1109454801