Mint explains what is driving brands to take on their rivals.

The latest dispute is between Beco and HUL. HUL sued Beco’s parent, Kwick Living (I) Pvt. Ltd, in the Delhi high court in August 2026, challenging Beco’s #WarOnWhatsHidden campaign comparing its products with HUL’s Surf Excel and Vim and questioning ingredients used in the rival products. HUL alleged the campaign is misleading and commercially disparaging.

The case is at a preliminary stage. On 24 August, the court reserved its order on whether it has jurisdiction to hear the suit and has not yet ruled on the merits of HUL’s allegations.

In water purifiers, the fight has gone the other way. Urban Company sued Kent RO in the Delhi high court on 11 August, after Kent ran advertisements questioning Native’s two-year filter life and no-servicing proposition, calling them a “marketing gimmick” and describing the purifiers as “unsafe” and “risky”.

At a 12 August hearing, Kent agreed to withdraw the disputed advertisements and not run similar material targeting Native’s filter-life and no-servicing claims. The court directed the material to be removed within 15 days.

The appeal is straightforward: a familiar rival gives consumers an immediate benchmark. Instead of explaining a product difference in isolation, a brand can position its offering against something consumers already know.

“Rather than making a claim in isolation, a brand can place its product or proposition against an existing choice in the market, helping consumers understand the distinction,” said Manisha Kapoor, chief executive and secretary general of the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI).

That can be particularly valuable for challenger brands with lower awareness. By referencing a market leader, they can communicate what sets them apart without first having to build familiarity with the category. The approach can also help them cut through crowded social media, e-commerce and quick-commerce channels.

Comparisons can help challengers “gain attention and establish a distinctive position”, Kapoor said, particularly when they demonstrate a “genuine and demonstrable difference”. But there is a limit: the rival can provide the reference point, but cannot become the brand’s proposition. A challenger ultimately needs its own “reasons for consumers to choose it”.

Comparative advertising is not new. India has seen years of advertising wars between Pepsi and Coca-Cola, with brands also using rivals’ taglines and positioning to make their own pitch. What has changed is that the tactic is no longer limited to large companies.

Direct-to-consumer and regional brands are increasingly taking on established players, often without naming them directly. Lahori Zeera’s “India Ka Thanda” positioning, for instance, taps into the familiar idea of “thanda” associated with Coca-Cola’s “Thanda Matlab Coca-Cola” tagline, creating a comparison in consumers’ minds without explicitly naming the rival. Reliance Consumer Products Ltd’s Campa has taken a similar approach with “The Great Indian Taste”, echoing Coca-Cola’s long-running “Great Taste” positioning without directly comparing the two brands.

The nature of comparisons is changing too. Brands are moving beyond broad claims on taste or performance to specific attributes such as ingredients, Sun Protection Factor (SPF), filter life, servicing and safety. As consumer markets get more crowded, comparative advertising is becoming less about saying “my product is better” and more about challenging a rival’s claims and positioning.

Comparative advertising can make a product difference easier to understand because it gives consumers a familiar benchmark. For a challenger, saying “our product is better” can be an abstract claim; comparing it with a brand consumers already know makes the proposition more immediate.

But that does not necessarily translate into higher sales or market share.

“It would be difficult to attribute improvements in sales or market share solely to comparative advertising, since these outcomes are influenced by several factors,” Kapoor said. Pricing, distribution, product quality and promotions also determine how a brand performs.

There is also a risk for challengers in borrowing attention from a larger rival; they may make the rival more memorable than themselves. Comparative advertising can build awareness, Kapoor said, but it cannot replace a clear reason for consumers to choose the brand.

The line is not always clear. A comparison can become problematic if a brand selectively presents facts, compares products unfairly, exaggerates what its evidence proves or leaves consumers with a misleading impression. Brands must also be careful when using a rival’s name, trademark or advertising identity.

The issue is more complicated when brands compare rivals without naming them, using similar taglines, imagery or positioning. In such cases, the question is whether consumers are likely to make a comparison that the advertiser cannot substantiate. The ASCI Code also bars advertisements from misleading consumers through implications, omissions or exaggeration.