In 1998, CavinKare launched Fairever fairness cream. The company took care to stick to the herbal platform that its consumers had come to associate with all CavinKare products. Fairever seemed to be an instant success. Fairever's market share jumped from 1.23% in 1998 to 8.13% in 1999. The brand was expected to grow from Rs 160 million 1999 to Rs 560 million in 2000. Its success attracted many players, including Godrej (FairGlow) and Paras Chemicals (Freshia). Existing products like Emami Naturally Fair and F&L were promoted with renewed vigor.
In December 1999, Godrej launched FairGlow fairness soap and created a new product category. The soap claimed to remove blemishes to give the user a smooth and glowing complexion. FairGlow was positioned as a twin advantage soap – a clean fresh bath and the added benefit of fairness. In early 2000, Godrej Soaps launched Nikhar, which was based on the ancient Indian formula of milk, besan and turmeric. Though Nikhar and FairGlow were positioned differently – Nikhar targeted fairness and FairGlow claimed to protect skin naturally – the objective of both was the same, get more of a stagnating market.
In April 2000, HLL introduced Lux Skincare soap, positioned on the sunscreen platform. Priced at Rs.14 for a 75gm cake, it was able to garner only a 0.5% share by 2000 end. In comparison, the mother brand Lux had a share of 14%. Retailers claimed that sales for the Lux variant were poor as it promised only protection from ultraviolet rays. While this soap prevented one from growing darker, it did not promise to enhance the complexion.
By 2000 end, F&L cream seemed to be losing ground not only to other creams but also to FairGlow soap. The switch from cream to soap was largely because soaps were perceived to be less harmful to the skin than cream. HLL did not have a product in its soap portfolio for this segment, and this was where Godrej seemed to have gained. However, in 2001, HLL followed Godrej's footsteps and launched Fair & Lovely Fairness Soap. This intensified the competition.
F&L's extension into soaps was in tune with HLL's strategy to develop and grow the premium segment of the market. Since the growth in the toilet soap market had slowed down, the industry felt that premium soaps would re-energise the market. Sangeeta Pendurkar, Marketing Manager, HLL, said, “ We are targeting the 50,000 tonne premium soaps market with F&L. We believe F&L soap will synergise with F&L cream as research reveals that the usage of both will deliver better fairness.” Analysts felt that though FairGlow had the first mover advantage, F&L soap's growth potential could not be underestimated given the strong equity of the mother brand.
In 1999, HLL and CavinKare hiked the price of F&L and Fairever by Re. 1 from Rs.25 and Rs.26 respectively. In 2000, Fairever was back to its original price to maintain price parity. Many stockists said that this was done to push the product against F&L. A stockist commented, “The company was trying out this price to compete with F&L and other new brands that have come in. But we did not see higher sales due to this and the company reverted to its original price.” F&L too followed suit. During 2000-01, while the fairness cream market was growing at an average of 15% Fairever's growth had slowed down. Analysts felt that this was mainly because Fairever was priced higher than competing products.
Meanwhile, in January 2000, HLL filed a patent infringement suit for Rs.100 million in the Kolkata High Court against CavinKare Ltd. HLL alleged that CavinKare was using its patented F&L formula without its knowledge or permission. HLL obtained an ex-parte stay on CavinKare, but CavinKare got the stay vacated in a week?s time. It also filed a patent revocation application in the Chennai High Court and defended the suit on the grounds that HLL?s patent was not valid. CavinKare further claimed that the ingredients contained in the composition were 'prior art' and that the new patent was not an improvement of the earlier patent, which had expired in 1988.
In September 2000, the companies suddenly opted for an out-of-court settlement. CavinKare gave an undertaking to the court that the company would not manufacture and/or market either by themselves or by their agents any fairness cream by using silicone compound in combination with other ingredients covered in patent no. 169917 of the plaintiff (HLL), namely Niacinamide, Parsol MCX, Parsol 1789, with effect from September 15, 2000.” HLL also gave an undertaking that it would not interfere with the sale of the cream manufactured on or before September 15, 2000, lying with the wholesalers, re-distribution stockists, and retailers.