Nivea vs Ponds: Popular moisturiser brands battle it out in a Delhi court
The fight was between NIVEA and Ponds, staples on many a dressing table across the country
3 min read
In 2021, Beiersdorf AG (which manufactures NIVEA creams) took Hindustan Unilever Limited to the Delhi High Court. (File Photo)Oil content, hydration, market practices and even a question of whether a company can own the colour blue: For over three years, the legal battle between two of India’s most popular moisturisers saw its share of twists and turns.
The fight was between NIVEA and Ponds, staples on many a dressing table across the country. In 2021, Beiersdorf AG (which manufactures NIVEA creams) took Hindustan Unilever Limited to the Delhi High Court. It alleged that Ponds salespersons were engaged in unfair market practices across the city’s malls.
They would approach a customer, apply NIVEA’s cream on one hand and Ponds on the other. Then, inviting the customer to look through a magnifying glass, they would “show” them that NIVEA’s cream left a far greater residue compared to Ponds’ “super light gel”.
Beiersdorf AG sought a “permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, unfair trade practices, disparagement, dilution and damages”.
Ponds responded that they were merely using a generic “blue tub” — without NIVEA’s branding. After all, they argued, NIVEA does not have a monopoly on the colour blue. And that they did not misrepresent the facts — Ponds cream was “less sticky” than the one in the “blue tub”.
NIVEA responded that Ponds was making “an inherently wrong comparison” between two different categories of creams. NIVEA emphasised that their “product from the heavy category containing 25 per cent fatty matter” was being compared to the Ponds’ product which had “10 per cent fatty matter”. In fact, NIVEA creme moisturiser is a heavy cream and Ponds’ super light gel is a moisturiser in the gel category.
NIVEA also submitted a tabulated comparison showing that NIVEA Men fresh gel would make a better comparison — it is in the same category as Ponds’ super light gel and has just 1.35 per cent fat content.
In his order, Justice Anish Dayal was “of the opinion that the impugned activity undertaken by the defendant choosing to compare plaintiff’s ‘NIVEA’ products (either expressly or by implication or association) and the defendant’s products, especially those under the trademark ‘Ponds’, are prima facie misleading and disparaging, and cause irreversible prejudice to the plaintiff.”
On the colour blue too, HUL’s argument did not cut ice. The court concluded that “the use by defendant of a blue tub cream, in exactly the same distinctive colour, seems prima facie to have the objective to make a consumer draw association to the plaintiff’s product.” As things stand, the Ponds salesperson needs, at the very least, a different colour for its “blue tub”.
You May Like
Photos
