The Madras High Court recently dismissed an application filed by Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. seeking revocation of leave granted to Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (HUL) to institute a suit against the company for alleged misleading advertisements. HUL had approached the Court alleging that certain nationwide advertisements issued by Reckitt contained misleading claims, and sought injunctive relief. Reckitt, however, challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction, contending that the cause of action, if any, arose in Mumbai where the advertisements were conceptualised and released.
In assessing the issue of jurisdiction, the Court noted that the advertisements in question were broadcast across India, including in the State of Tamil Nadu, in English and regional languages. Since the grievance related to misleading representations shown to consumers, the Court held that the impact and dissemination of the advertisement within the State constituted a part of the cause of action. The Court reiterated that when an advertisement is circulated or published in a particular jurisdiction, and the alleged harm arises from such publication, the plaintiff is entitled to invoke jurisdiction in that forum.
Consequently, the Court held that the requirements under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent were satisfied, and declined to revoke the leave earlier granted. The application filed by Reckitt was accordingly dismissed.
Source: Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. [ C.S.No.132 of 2025]