There was a time when brands took digs at each other and audiences simply enjoyed the show.

Pepsi vs Coca-Cola.
Horlicks vs Complan.
Surf Excel vs Ghadi.

The brand wars were part of advertising culture.

But today, the distance between a cheeky comparative ad and a courtroom hearing can be surprisingly short.

And India has just seen two cases arrive almost back-to-back.

Beco took on HUL over Surf Excel and Vim with its #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign. Days earlier, Urban Company had taken Kent RO to the Delhi High Court over advertisements questioning claims around its Native water purifiers. In both cases, the basic advertising question is the same:

When does saying “we’re better” become saying “they’re bad”?

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as challenger brands become more comfortable naming category leaders, using influencers to amplify comparisons and turning competitive advertising into social-first content.

And perhaps the bigger question for marketers is this:

Is comparative advertising actually building brands, or is it simply building controversy?

What Is Comparative Advertising?

Comparative advertising is exactly what it sounds like: advertising that compares one product or service with another.

The comparison could be direct, where the competitor is named, or indirect, where the audience is expected to identify the competitor through packaging, colours, slogans, category cues or other distinctive references.

And contrary to what many people assume, naming a competitor in an advertisement is not automatically illegal or prohibited in India.

The Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) expressly permits comparisons with other products and manufacturers, including comparisons where a competitor is named, provided certain conditions are met.

The comparison must be clear, factual, accurate and capable of substantiation. It should not mislead consumers, create an artificial advantage through selective comparison, or unfairly denigrate or discredit the competitor.

So the problem isn’t comparison.

The problem is what the comparison is trying to make the consumer believe.

Why Are Brands Becoming More Direct?

The answer has a lot to do with how advertising itself has changed.

A challenger brand today isn’t necessarily trying to spend years slowly building awareness through television. It can launch a provocative campaign on Instagram, put the competitor’s name into the conversation, get creators talking about it, generate earned media and potentially reach millions of people without having the media muscle of an established FMCG giant.

That changes the economics of competitive advertising.

A young brand saying:

“We make a better detergent.”

is one more claim in an overcrowded category.

A young brand saying:

“Here’s what the market leader doesn’t tell you.”

is a story.

And stories travel.

That is partly what made Beco’s campaign interesting.

Its #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign directly named HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim and questioned ingredients used in those products, positioning Beco around ingredient transparency. HUL subsequently approached the Delhi High Court, alleging commercial disparagement and trademark-related violations. The court sought Beco’s response before deciding HUL’s application for interim relief.

The campaign therefore became bigger than a product comparison.

It became a conversation about what brands tell consumers – and what they don’t.

That is powerful marketing territory.

It is also legally sensitive territory.

Beco vs HUL: When Ingredient Transparency Becomes a Competitive Claim

Beco’s campaign is particularly interesting because it didn’t simply say that its cleaning products work better.

It questioned ingredients in competing products and connected those ingredients with potential health concerns.

HUL challenged the campaign, arguing that the claims were not adequately substantiated and that the presence of an ingredient does not, by itself, establish that the finished formulation causes the alleged harm under normal conditions of use.

That distinction is incredibly important for marketers.

There is a world of difference between:

“Our product doesn’t contain X.”

and

“Their product contains X, therefore their product is harmful.”

The first is primarily a claim about your own product.

The second is a claim about another company’s product and potentially its safety.

That raises the evidentiary bar considerably.

And this is where many comparative campaigns can get themselves into trouble.

A brand may have technically accurate information, but the overall impression created by the advertisement can still be challenged.

Because consumers don’t analyse advertisements like lawyers.

They see the headline.
They see the visual.
They hear the voiceover.

And they form an impression.

Urban Company vs Kent: The New-Age Brand War

The Urban Company-Kent dispute offers another fascinating example of how comparative advertising is evolving.

Urban Company approached the Delhi High Court after Kent ran advertisements and social media content questioning claims associated with Urban Company’s Native water purifiers, including the two-year filter-life and servicing propositions. The campaign also involved influencer-led content.

Kent subsequently agreed before the Delhi High Court to withdraw the disputed advertisements and content. The court had indicated that Urban Company had made out a prima facie case for interim relief.

What makes this case particularly relevant isn’t simply that two brands went to court.

It is where the comparison happened.

The old comparative ad was a TV commercial.

The new comparative ad can be:

• A Reel
• An influencer video
• A YouTube integration
• A meme
• An Instagram carousel
• An OOH execution
• A founder’s LinkedIn post
• A campaign hashtag

The comparison can travel across platforms before the competitor even gets a chance to respond.

That changes the risk calculation for brands.

A controversial TV commercial might run for a few weeks.

A controversial Reel can be screenshotted, reposted and discussed indefinitely.

The Legal Line: Puffery vs Disparagement

So where exactly does a brand cross the line?

Indian courts have repeatedly drawn an important distinction between puffery and disparagement.

A brand can say its product is the best.

It can say its product is superior.

It can make a strong case for choosing its product.

What becomes problematic is when the advertisement starts making derogatory, defamatory or misleading claims about the competitor.

The Delhi High Court’s 2025 order in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. RSPL Ltd., involving Surf Excel and Ghadi, is particularly useful here.

The Court observed that an advertiser can promote its own product as long as it does not deliberately tarnish or defame the competitor. It specifically stated that while puffery is permissible, defamation and tarnishment are not. It also observed that comparative advertising itself can be healthy, while directing the removal of phrases it considered derogatory and containing negative innuendos about Surf Excel.

That’s a useful principle for the advertising industry:

You can make your product look good without making the competitor look bad.

And honestly, the best comparative advertising often does exactly that.

The Ghadi vs Surf Excel Lesson

The Ghadi-Surf Excel dispute is a good example of how indirect comparison can also become identifiable.

The Ghadi advertisements did not necessarily need to repeatedly say “Surf Excel” for the competitor to be understood.

The Delhi High Court found, from a lay consumer’s perspective, that the references in the advertisements could be taken as referring to Surf Excel. It then directed RSPL to remove specific phrases that were prima facie derogatory and made negative innuendos about HUL’s product.

That matters because advertisers sometimes assume:

“We didn’t name the competitor, so we’re safe.”

Not necessarily.

If the average consumer can reasonably identify the brand being targeted, the comparison can still be scrutinised.

In other words:

You don’t always have to say the competitor’s name to call out the competitor.

Patanjali vs Dabur: When “Better” Becomes “Their Product Is Inferior”

The Patanjali-Dabur disputes offer another useful lens.

In September 2025, the Delhi High Court allowed Patanjali to use the phrase “why settle for ordinary chyawanprash”, while restricting a specific reference to a competing product being “made with 40 herbs” because that reference was understood as targeting Dabur’s well-known formulation.

The episode illustrates a subtle but important distinction.

There is a difference between saying:

“Why settle for ordinary?”

and effectively saying:

“The competitor’s product is inferior because of a specific characteristic.”

The first can function as broad puffery.

The second can become a factual comparative claim that needs to be defensible.

And the story did not end there.

In November 2025, the Delhi High Court also restrained Patanjali from using an advertisement describing competing chyawanprash products as “dhoka”, or deception, finding that the advertisement unfairly discredited rival manufacturers.

That’s where the difference between competitive confidence and competitive disparagement becomes very clear.

What ASCI Says About Comparative Advertising

ASCI’s position is actually quite practical.

Its Code allows comparative advertising, including advertisements where a competitor is named, but lays down conditions around fairness.

Among them:

• The aspects being compared must be clear.
• Comparison parameters should not be selected to create an artificial or misleading advantage.
• Claims must be factual, accurate and capable of substantiation.
• Consumers should not be misled about either product.
• Competitors should not be unfairly denigrated, attacked or discredited.
• Brands should not make unjustifiable use of another company’s goodwill or trademarks.

That sounds restrictive.

It actually isn’t.

It gives marketers plenty of room to be competitive.

The important thing is how you build the comparison.

For example, ASCI’s 2026 AdLaw Compendium gives the example of a detergent brand claiming it removes 30% more stains than Brand X, supported by laboratory testing. That’s a straightforward, measurable comparison.

The problem begins when brands manipulate the comparison itself; for instance, selecting a competitor’s weakest model or a parameter that creates a distorted advantage without making the basis clear.

So the rule isn’t:

Don’t compare.

It is:

Compare fairly.

Why Challenger Brands Love Comparative Advertising

There is a strategic reason challengers keep doing this.

Established brands have something challengers desperately need: mental availability.

Consumers already know them.

They know the name.
They recognise the pack.
They have seen the ads.
They may already have the product at home.

A challenger has to break that habit.

Comparative advertising can help because it allows the challenger to borrow the category leader’s existing mental real estate.

The consumer doesn’t have to learn:

“Who is this brand?”

They immediately understand:

“Oh, they’re taking on that brand.”

That can dramatically reduce the amount of explanation required.

But there is a catch.

Attention is not the same thing as credibility.

Can Controversy Actually Build a Brand?

Sometimes.

But controversy by itself is a terrible brand strategy.

A campaign can generate:

• Millions of views
• News coverage
• Social chatter
• Memes
• Influencer reactions
• Industry debate

And still fail to make consumers want the product.

That’s because the competitor may become the hero of the story.

Imagine spending ₹10 crore making an advertisement about Brand X and the only thing consumers remember is Brand X.

Congratulations.

You just bought Brand X media.

This is one of the biggest strategic risks of comparative advertising.

The competitor should be the context, not the protagonist.

The strongest campaigns use the rival as a reference point and then quickly bring the conversation back to their own product truth.

So, Should Brands Name Their Competitors?

Yes.

Sometimes.

But only when there is a genuine strategic reason to do it.

Naming the competitor makes sense when:

1. The comparison is meaningful.

There should be an actual consumer-relevant difference.

2. The claim can be proven.

If your legal team has to spend three weeks figuring out whether the claim is defensible, perhaps the creative team shouldn’t be publishing it tomorrow.

3. The comparison strengthens your positioning.

The consumer should understand what your brand stands for after seeing the ad.

4. The competitor is relevant to the purchase decision.

Don’t name a competitor just because it is famous.

5. The campaign can survive scrutiny.

Not just legal scrutiny.

Consumer scrutiny.

Because today’s consumers can fact-check a claim in seconds.

The New Rule for Comparative Advertising

The old question was:

“Can we say this about our competitor?”

The better question today is:

“Can we prove this, and does saying it make our brand stronger?”

That’s a much more useful filter.

Because the objective of advertising isn’t to win an argument with another marketer.

It is to win a place in the consumer’s mind.

And that requires more than a clever takedown.

It requires a reason to believe.

The Future of Brand Wars in India

Comparative advertising isn’t going away.

If anything, it is likely to become more common.

More challenger brands are entering categories traditionally dominated by large FMCG, consumer-tech and service brands. Social platforms are making direct communication cheaper and faster. Influencers are becoming part of brand communications. And consumers are increasingly comfortable comparing products publicly.

All of that creates fertile ground for competitive advertising.

But it also creates a new responsibility for marketers.

The sharper the comparison, the stronger the proof needs to be.

Beco-HUL and Urban Company-Kent show how quickly a competitive communication can move from a campaign idea to a legal dispute. Ghadi-Surf Excel shows that even indirect references can be scrutinised when the competitor is identifiable. Patanjali-Dabur demonstrates how a superiority claim can become problematic when it starts implying that a competitor’s product is inferior or deceptive.

The lesson isn’t that brands should stop taking shots.

Indian advertising has always been more interesting when brands have a little attitude.

The lesson is simply this:

Take the shot. Have the proof. Know where the line is.

Because the best competitive advertisement doesn’t leave consumers thinking:

“Wow, that brand destroyed its competitor.”

It leaves them thinking:

“I didn’t know this brand was that good.”

And that’s the difference between winning an advertising battle and building a brand.

Key Takeaways

Comparative advertising is legal in India, but not without limits.

Naming a competitor isn’t automatically a violation. The comparison needs to be fair, factual, clear, and substantiated.

Puffery is different from disparagement. A brand can promote its own superiority, but cannot deliberately tarnish or defame a competitor.

You don’t have to name a competitor for consumers to identify it. Visual and verbal cues can make the target obvious.

Challenger brands have the most to gain from comparative advertising. It can help them enter an existing category conversation quickly.

But controversy isn’t credibility. Evidence, product performance, and a differentiated proposition are what ultimately build trust.

The best comparative advertising makes the competitor the context, not the story.