Recently, the Delhi High Court recently concluded a three-year legal battle between two leading moisturiser brands in India, NIVEA and Ponds. The dispute began in 2021 when Beiersdorf AG, the manufacturer of NIVEA, filed a lawsuit against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), which produces Ponds, alleging unfair market practices and trademark infringement.
Beiersdorf AG accused HUL of engaging in deceptive sales tactics to disparage NIVEA’s products. The contentious practice involved Ponds salespersons applying NIVEA’s cream on one hand and Ponds on the other, using a magnifying glass to demonstrate that NIVEA’s cream left more residue. Beiersdorf sought a permanent injunction to stop these practices, claiming that they constituted trademark infringement and market disparagement.
HUL defended its actions, asserting that their demonstrations used a generic blue tub devoid of NIVEA’s branding, arguing that NIVEA does not have exclusive rights to the colour blue. They also claimed that their product comparison was fair, emphasizing that Ponds’ cream was less sticky than NIVEA’s. However, NIVEA countered this by highlighting the unfairness of comparing their heavier cream, which contains 25% fatty matter, with Ponds’ lighter gel, which has only 10% fatty matter. NIVEA suggested that a fairer comparison would be with their NIVEA Men fresh gel, which has a similar fat content to Ponds’ super light gel.
Justice Anish Dayal ruled in favour of NIVEA, determining that HUL’s practices were misleading and constituted market disparagement, causing irreversible damage to NIVEA. The court also rejected HUL’s defence regarding the colour blue, stating that the similarity in packaging was likely intended to confuse consumers and falsely associate Ponds’ products with NIVEA’s.
