The Delhi High Court has reserved its order on the preliminary question of territorial jurisdiction in Hindustan Unilever’s disparagement suit against Kwick Living, which owns home-care brand Beco.

The court concluded arguments on the issue on 24 August after hearing both sides.

Beco has argued that the dispute has no real connection with Delhi. HUL, on the other hand, has argued that Beco’s campaign is accessible to consumers in the city and that consumers can also place orders through the brand’s website, creating a commercial connection with Delhi.

As per a report by Live Law Biz, the court has made it clear that no interim or ad-interim order will be passed before the jurisdiction issue is decided, including HUL’s request concerning the continuation of Beco’s advertising campaign.

The jurisdiction question comes after HUL approached the Delhi High Court over Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden comparative advertising campaign, which featured HUL’s Surf Excel Matic Liquid and Vim Dishwash Gel.

HUL has alleged commercial disparagement, trademark infringement and passing off.

Beco’s campaign claims that laboratory testing detected Benzisothiazolinone (BIT) and Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate (LAS) in Surf Excel, while LAS was detected in Vim, and links the ingredients to potential skin irritation and allergic reactions.

HUL has disputed the way the findings have been presented, arguing that testing for the presence and concentration of individual ingredients does not establish that the finished products cause irritation or allergic reactions during normal use.

HUL has also argued that a prescribed safety test for finished products was not conducted by Beco, according to a report by Moneycontrol.

The company has further objected to Beco’s use of its registered advertising lines, including Surf Excel’s ‘Daag Achhe Hain’ and Vim’s ‘100 nimbuon ki shakti’, in identifying the products featured in the campaign.

When the matter first came before the court on 19 August, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani sought Beco’s response to HUL’s application for an interim injunction but did not immediately restrain the campaign.

HUL has now indicated that its submissions on the merits of its injunction plea have not yet been addressed. Those arguments will be considered only if the court first finds that it has jurisdiction to hear the case.

For now, therefore, the court is not deciding whether Beco’s advertising claims are correct or whether HUL’s products pose the risks alleged in the campaign. The immediate legal question is whether the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction to hear the dispute in the first place, reported Live Law Biz.