There was a time when competitive advertising was almost a form of entertainment. Think back to the Cola Wars. Pepsi and Coca-Cola were not just competing for consumers; they were competing in their advertising too. One brand would take a swipe, the other would respond, and consumers would wait to see what came next. Horlicks and Complan had their own version of this rivalry, with both brands using advertising to position themselves against the other.
The difference today is that the same kind of advertising can take a brand from the television or digital screen to the courtroom much faster.
That is what makes two advertising disputes that surfaced recently within days of each other particularly interesting. In one, Urban Company took Kent RO to the Delhi High Court over advertisements and social media content that questioned the two-year filter and service-life claims of its Native water purifiers. Kent described the proposition as a ‘marketing gimmick’ and allegedly portrayed the products as ‘unsafe’ and ‘risky’. Following the August 12 hearing, Kent agreed to pull down the disputed advertisements and not run similar disparaging claims.
Similarly, a few days later, Hindustan Unilever moved the Delhi High Court against Beco and its parent company Kwick Living over Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign, which directly named HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim. The campaign questioned ingredients used in the products and linked them to potential skin irritation and allergic reactions. HUL has alleged commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off. The court issued notice to Beco but did not immediately restrain the campaign.
The case has since taken another interesting turn. During the August 21 hearing, the Delhi High Court questioned whether it had territorial jurisdiction to hear HUL’s plea in the first place. The court has not yet ruled on the merits of HUL’s allegations or its request for an interim injunction.
For Beco, however, the campaign is part of a larger attempt to challenge how the home-care category communicates with consumers.
Beco’s war on what’s hidden
Beco is not a legacy FMCG player suddenly deciding to attack a larger rival. Founded in 2019 by Aditya Ruia, Akshay Varma and Anuj Ruia, the brand emerged from a sustainability proposition, offering alternatives to everyday home and personal-care products. The idea itself came from a beach clean-up, where the founders encountered a plastic wrapper from a product that had been discontinued decades earlier.
That challenger positioning has always been central to Beco. Its latest campaign, created by independent agency Colloquial, takes that positioning into the much more crowded home-cleaning category. The campaign uses comparisons with category leaders and scientific references to encourage consumers to look more closely at the ingredients in everyday home-care products.
And that is where Beco crossed into territory that carries significantly higher risk.
Aditya Ruia, Co-founder, Beco, has defended the campaign as a consumer-awareness effort rather than an attempt to pick a fight with HUL. “We started the war because we believe consumers deserve to know what they bring into their homes, every time and every day,” Ruia wrote on LinkedIn this morning.
He argued that ingredient transparency should become a category standard rather than simply a marketing strategy. “We didn’t start this to pick a fight. We started it because we felt someone needed to ask the question,” Ruia wrote.
The argument goes to the heart of why challenger brands use comparative advertising in the first place.
Why challenger brands take names
“Brands are becoming more direct, rather than simply more aggressive,” says Vibhor Gulati, Founder, Defodio Digital. “For challenger brands, claiming that our product is better may not be enough to break through. Putting a brand directly against a category leader creates context, while digital and social media make a sharp brand-versus-brand proposition more likely to generate conversation.”
He adds, “For a challenger, the logic is straightforward. An established brand already owns awareness, distribution and years of consumer memory. A smaller brand must create that context for itself. Naming a market leader can provide an instant frame of reference. Consumers may not know the challenger, but they almost certainly know the brand being challenged.
The line between comparison and disparagement
Gulati adds, “The distinction is simple. ‘Removes more stains’ is a comparative performance claim, while ‘their product is unsafe’ is a different kind of claim, carrying a much higher burden of proof.”
The ASCI framework permits comparative advertising, including comparisons with named competitors, provided the comparison is factual, accurate, capable of substantiation and does not unfairly denigrate or discredit the competing product. It also cautions against choosing parameters that create an artificial or misleading advantage.
Recent court cases illustrate that distinction. In the RSPL Limited-Hindustan Unilever Ltd.’s (HUL) dispute in June 2025, involving Ghadi and Surf Excel, the Delhi High Court held that comparative advertising can be healthy but directed the removal of phrases that were prima facie derogatory and created negative innuendos about Surf Excel.
The Patanjali-Dabur matter that took place in July 2025 offers another example. The Delhi High Court dealt with advertisements for Patanjali Special Chyawanprash that Dabur alleged disparaged its product and the broader Chyawanprash category and granted interim relief against objectionable advertising.
“The strongest comparative campaigns don’t stop at saying, ‘They are worse,’” Gulati says. “They say, ‘Here is the meaningful difference, here is the proof, and here is why it matters to you.’” That is where the strategic opportunity lies. Naming a competitor can make an advertisement more immediately understandable, but it can also leave consumers remembering the rival rather than the brand making the claim.
Attention is not as same as trust
Ashok Lalla, an independent brand and digital advisor, says the timing of the Kent-Urban Company and Beco-HUL disputes is coincidental. He mentions, “Comparative advertising is one of the oldest ways brands differentiate themselves, particularly around rational factors such as product features and ingredients. Naming a competitor is less common because of potential legal disputes, questions around the validity of comparisons and the free publicity handed to the rival.”
He also cautions that challenger brands may get an initial bump from aggressive comparisons, but enduring recall and preference require stronger emotional benefits.
Kshitij A. Kulkarni, Revenue Marketing Strategist, shares, “Finding a soft spot and building a legal case around it are two different skills. And right now, every challenger brand is confusing the second for a marketing strategy, while some challenger brands are confusing the two.” For him, the real test is not whether a campaign gets attention, but whether it creates preference and sales. That distinction matters because controversy can create visibility without creating credibility.
Chetna Negandhi, Group Director, Gozoop Creative, is more cautious about reading the recent disputes as proof of a trend. “The effectiveness of comparative advertising depends on execution, category and audience. For challenger brands, comparison can be a door-opener, but it cannot substitute for trust.”
“A challenger can borrow the incumbent’s name to get attention. It cannot borrow the incumbent’s trust,” Negandhi says.
The Cola Wars worked partly because the rivalry itself was the entertainment. Pepsi and Coca-Cola could poke at each other, and consumers understood the rules of the game. But today’s advertising ecosystem is different. Claims travel instantly across social media, influencer content can extend the life of a campaign, and a brand’s allegation can become a legal exhibit as quickly as it becomes a viral post.
The Kent RO-Urban Company dispute and the HUL-Beco case therefore point to a more consequential question than whether brands should compare themselves with competitors. It is whether they know where comparison ends, and disparagement begins.
For a brand trying to break through, naming a competitor can provide the attention it needs. But the sharper the claim, the stronger the proof needs to be. And in an age where a competitive advertisement can become a court case almost overnight, that line is no longer merely a creative consideration. It is a business risk.
