A simmering rivalry in the emerging skincare market in India wasted in the courts. Honasa Consumer Ltd, the parent of trademarks such as MamaArth and Derma Co., filed a lawsuit against Hindustan Unilever Ltd (their) on Tuesday claiming that a recent Lakme Sunscreen campaign undermined the credibility of his own product. They, in turn, struck back with a lead and escalated the splash to a full -fledged legal battle. The crux of the dispute is a new Huis campaign for Lakme’s SPF 50 screen that has been launched this weekend with the Hashtag #Lakmēspf50Truth100. The advertisement claims that certain “online top-selling sunscre” that claims that SPF 50 actually offers much lower protection-the sale of SPF 20. Although it does not mention any brand, the video contrasts several yellow bottles with Lakme’s packaging and mentions it in the Vivo SPF testing, a clinical method used to judge sun protection. Honasa, whose Derma Co. sunscreen also advertises SPF 50 and emphasizes his own in-vivo testing, immediately offended. On Tuesday, Honasa founder, Ghazal Alagh, replied to LinkedIn with a clear welcome: “Lakmé, welcome to the in-Vivo-tested SPF 50 club.” Her message also contains a graphic that congratulated Lakme to finally test his sunscreen clinically. “It prevents brands from getting sleepy, getting drowsy and brings more innovation to consumers,” she added. During a hearing in the Delhi High Court on Wednesday, senior lawyer Amit Sibal, who represented Honasa, accused them of a calculated attack on the reputation of Derma Co. has, with reference to agreements in the packaging shown in the Lakme advertisement. “My packaging is characteristic. People associate me with it. They clearly target me,” Sibal told the court. He noted that the SPF rating of the product certified at 50.169 is in vivo testing central in the positioning of the brand. Justice Amit Bansal, who is serving on the case, noted that the Lakme ad appeared ‘condescending’, and that their lawyer had conveyed the court’s concern to the company. They were issued to them and asked to formally respond to Honasa’s plea. The case is expected to be heard again on Thursday. In response, they filed a lawsuit against the Honasa consumer in the Bombay High Court in which he identified the brand via Honasa. They did not respond to inquiries sent by Mint. Questions sent to the Honasa consumer remained unanswered. First published: 16 Apr 2025, 18:30 IST
-
-
-
-
